Man up, Kev and Tony, have a free vote on equal marriage

Yannick says:

08:56am | 25/02/10

Aren’t we always having a go at the Greens for not having a policy platform outside of environmental issues? For not being credible candidates because they can’t see past the closest tree? Good on Senator Sarah for branching out and showing that the Greens do stand for more than just a moratorium on coal fired power plants.

Steely Dan says:

10:59am | 25/02/10

Why is ‘Labor’ so obsessed with non-IR-related policy?  Why are the Liberals conservative?

They’re not claiming that they’re a single-issue party - you are!

formersnag says:

11:27am | 25/02/10

Because they are reds, back in the late 80’s, what was left of the CPA, Communist Party Australia and SWP, Socialist Workers Party, realised they were dying faster than the USSR and needed to set aside their Lenin vs Trotsky, Stalin vs Mao, dichotomies. They had to work together for the destruction of capitalism, viva la revolution was still valid “in their eyes”, but needed a new cover.

In true propaganda style, they re badged their social engineering, renamed their rhetoric. ‘The Muppet’s” with Kermit’s song about “being green” were popular and they had the perfect cover to oppose all capitalist progress. Wave the green flag at every development proposal.

The second front of the red/green/labour coalition “fifth column”, was feman-nazism. Destroy western families. Slow capitalism down with several generations of social upheaval. Rename the “capitalist pigs”, “male chauvinist pigs”. Clog their system with several generations of abused children, who would hopefully grow up into dysfunctional adults, abusing themselves with alcohol, tobacco, drugs, gambling, etc.

Perversion morally, politically, every way possible, is just another part of that plan. And this coming from an alleged mother who was willing to upset/abuse her toddler in public to score cheap political points.

Steely Dan says:

11:46am | 25/02/10

@formersnag

Thanks for the entertainment!

CJ Morgan says:

12:28pm | 25/02/10

The Greens aren’t a single-issue political party.  They have well thought out policies for just about every portfolio. 

@Steely Dan:  formersnag provides entertainment in every online forum in which he posts.

justAboy says:

03:16pm | 25/02/10

@formersnag

Actually, I’m pretty sure that there were never any “reds” issues that led to the foundation. It was the amalgamation of many pro environmental groups, that had been started in the late 60’s and early 70’s and were finally merged into a national identity in the mid 80’s.

The two major parties were the Tasmania United Party, which was against the flooding of Lake Pedder in 1972, and the Nuclear Disarmament Party of Western Australia.

And the rest of your drivel barely counts as an informed debate so much as a mindless rant.

What a tool.

Also note that the tides are turning, look at Tasmanian Parliament. An election due in about a month and it looks like it will be a hung parliament, three ways, with Greens likely to pick up another few seats…

concerned homo says:

06:10am | 26/02/10

in this day and age why would anyone want to get married, especally Gays.

Caz says:

03:52pm | 26/02/10

The Greens aren’t a single issue party, equality is major party pillar. ‘Obsessed’ is a tad emotive, I’d go with committed and thank goodness one party is.

Mel says:

08:40am | 25/02/10

Agree Adam, especially with your last sentence. How does two gay people getting married affect my life or anybody elses? It doesn’t.

The issue isn’t about gays get married in churches, everyone knows their opinions on this matter and that is another debate for another time. The isue is making gay marriage legal in a purely civil manner. Arguments about God and the Bible have no place here because in Australia the church and state are seperate.

Kat says:

04:47pm | 25/02/10

point is at this stage in this country, they don’t even have that right!  We live in one country…..we should live under one law that is free from discrimination for ALL citizens.  You can come up with all the excuses you like but at the end of the day the legislation IS discriminatory.

April says:

08:48am | 26/02/10

Totally agree with Adam. If you don’t like gay marriage - don’t get one!

Paul Horn says:

11:25am | 26/02/10

Yeah Mel but neither does a bloke marrying a pig and being intimate with it on the front lawn. Why do the idiot elites use stupid illogical arguments?? I mean every stupid argument you use to support Gay Marriage is an argument for bestiality, necrophilia, polyamorism, polygamy you name it, the possibilities are endless.

So why don’t you just go the whole hog and open the whole argument up for anything goes!!! The whole marriage thing becomes a complete circus which is exactly what the labour party and progressive deviates have done their best to achieve and achieved it. First we had no fault divorce, then recognition of de facto couples and now the creme de la creme,  Gay Marriage!!! Whoopee.

Like it or lump it homosexuality is a disease. I mean why would Evolution, Gaia, Allah, Buddha, Aliens whatever expend so much effort to create and sustain life through the act of heterosexual copulation and then say oh but hang on we need to ensure that homosexuality should be allowed to thrive as an equally valid form of sexual expression. We should encourage it, support it, nurture it bla bla bla!!! Why would nature (see above variations) support a behaviour that directly threatens and runs counter to its designed intent??? It’s analogous to saying someone with incurable cancer with a few months to live is equally as healthy as an Olympic Athlete, it’s just the horrible patriarchical peceptions that this nasty oppressive society harbors of people with cancer. Pure idiotic madness!

If you could argue that the act of homosexuality increased ones fertility then you might just might have a natural argument for the behaviour. And before we get the usual left wing halfwits banging on about how sex is as much for pleasure as it is for procreation show me the knob on the side of you neck that switches between pleasure and procreation! Every act of heterosexual sexual intercourse carries with it a significant chance of procreation UNLESS we take man made precautions which are not always successful anyway to prevent unwanted accidents.  Natures brilliant way of ensuring the continuation of the species - coupling sex with pleasure.

So now that I have annihilated all the pathetic lefty inner city degenerate arguments of the oh so sophisiticated crowd of media and academic elites can we please drop this ridiculous subject as it does’nt make sense!  I am sick and tired of cursed journalist after journalist and the odd polly like madam above banging on about the Gay agenda. Where are the equal numbers of journalists representing the decent majority opposing this scam! Get away from the inner city crowd and you might find a completely different attitude towards the issue of Gay Marriage. If you want to gauge peoples opinions then get two chappies to hold hands around a working class shopping centre and see how people react!!! 

There is a big wide world out there Sarah with real people who do real wealth creating work. I suggest you get away from your inner city or trendy leafy suburb haunts and speak to a few! You might just learn something! 
Punch on people punch on!

Astrosodi says:

02:59pm | 26/02/10

@ Paul Horn - Hi Paul. There are some severe limitations on your argument as well. Regardless of what nature intends (if you support that arguement nature abhorrs homosexualtiy) there are a few points: (1) Mankind is a society that considers itself above mere animals and beasts (those who support heterosexual marriage only on the basis of religion cannot really argue the point based on nature only, because God gave us consciousness and a conscience that animals do not have, and therefore the ability to make choices and have a higher state of understainding and interwaction with our realities than animals); (2) Nature also, tragically, leaves people with a variety of illnesses and afflictions that we as conscious and conscienable humans do what we can to ease; (3) Referring simply to procreation, then it is not man’s place to interfere in any way? So if nature makes heterosexual people infertile, it’s nature (and God’s) way of saying those people should not procreate?; (4) The acts you mention with animals, dead people, are no analogous because we are again talking about an aspect of humans that separates us fro animals—free consent. Heterosexual marriage also requires ‘free and willing consent’ and can be null and void if that essential element is not present in ~bith~ parties to the marriage. Even the church’s that don;t allow divorce will annul a marriage on the basis that one party was not able to give full, free and willing consent to marriage. Animals and corpses cannot consent; homosexual ‘marriage’ (or whatever you would like it to be called) would, as with heterosexual unions, require two willing and freely consenting people. (5) There is no know on the side of your neck, no. But hetersoxeuals do engage in sexual practices that cannot result in pregnancy (I’ll be discrete as to what they are). Quite true that one type of sexual activity in hetersosexual will often result in pregnancy without man-made intervention (contraception, I presume you’re referring to), by hetersexuals do indulge in other types of sexual gratification that physically cannot reuslt in pregnancy. Should they be outlawed, because the only possible reason for indulging in those would be pleasure.
We all have views, and we should all listen to points with reasonableness. Some of your questions and challenges are insightful and raise questions, but don’t go overboard with some of the unsupportable points you argue the ‘gay lobby’ trots out.

James says:

03:26pm | 26/02/10

While I can not speak for you, Paul Horn, in my own considered opinion it would make no difference to my sexual orientation whether men can marry men and women can marry women.  It is not as though, were that to happen, a bunch of married people are going to say, “Hey, if gays can marry, then forget women - I’m gonna hook up with a horse!”

There are men who like women, men who like men, and men who like horses.  I know where I stand, and a change in the law will not change that.  That said, I cannot speak for you, as it sounds a lot like the only thing holding you back from a romantic entanglement with a horse is the current official definition of marriage.  And if these real people creating wealth are so worried that gays getting married would undermine their personal relationships, they need to stop looking towards homosexuals, and take a good long look at the basis of their relationship.

chris says:

10:37pm | 26/02/10

Paul Horn for PM!

ohplease! says:

06:42am | 27/02/10

Paul Horn for PM! With you all the way, so sick to death of this rot! Why do the gays bang on about equal rights so incessantly?You can’t procreate naturally, cause it aint natural it’s simple biology really, therefore if you wish to do what isn’t natural, your on your own! Run along live together do what you wish, but don’t expect to remould the fundamentals society is based upon! The reason you have such an uphill battle with this is because the bleeding obvious, your asking to change history!! Men and women, you know Adam and Eve? C’mon people stop the rot, leave marriage as the institution it’s meant to be men and women!!

John of Brisbane says:

10:46am | 25/02/10

I’m sorry, but the majority of Australians voted in Parties that don’t support this type of Bill. If they did, then the Greens would be in power or at least a significant opposition party.  As we all know polling results are tenuous at best and rely very much on the way the question is asked.  Sure have a debate, but don’t go on with the childish name calling and dares to “man-up” etc.  When you really want to get serious about it then grow up and stop acting liking children in a school yard. People in Australia have the rights and freedoms of any western democracy. What you do in yor bedroom should stay there. Don’t try to impose your practices on the majority of our country and then call us names when we feel outraged. We would be as outraged at any heterosexual who tried to enter the Gay Mardi Gras after party as was refused entry because of their sexual leaning.

Andrew says:

11:49am | 25/02/10

John, many heterosexual people do go to the after party (becuase it is one of the best in Australia). Discrimniation laws prohibit the refusal of entry based on sexual orientation.

Laws currently also prohibit people of the same sex to marry under civil law.

Does that seem right to you?

Kim says:

12:15pm | 25/02/10

John, I don’t think the readers here are “acting like children” and nobody is imposing anything on you.  The only thing that Sarah is saying is where is the “equality” that our government sprouts about?  If everyone is equal regardless of their sexual orientation, then why shouldn’t same sex marriages be allowed?  Nobody is forcing anything down your throat.  Nobody is forcing their views or practices on you.  In fact, nobody really cares what you think either.

See, I said all of that without any name calling whatsoever.

Lisa says:

04:18pm | 25/02/10

“It’s high time the Government realised that their conservative values regarding same sex marriage are not representative of the majority of Australia.” 
And where is the empirical evidence of this?  Or is it some sort of statistic that you pulled out of your arse because you and 10 of mates think this?

John of Brisbane says:

05:57pm | 25/02/10

Andrew “Laws currently also prohibit people of the same sex to marry under civil law.
Does that seem right to you? ”
While the law define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, then the law is right”  You need to redefine “marriage” before you redefine the law.
Kim “Nobody is forcing their views or practices on you”  yes you are! you are trying to have me agree to your definition of marriage. Call it whatever you like but don’t call it marriage ... it’s not.  If you want equality (whatever that is, women have been trying for years and seem to be worse off now than before) try to also accept the responsibilities that go with it and respect the views of those people who don’t agree with you.  BTW non-gays were refused entry to the party last year and are still excluded unless invited.

Clementine says:

10:48pm | 25/02/10

Lisa, if you take official polls to be representative of a cross section of society’s views, then you would have to admit the majority of Australians support same sex marriage. If you don’t take those same polls to be representative, then I pose your question back to you: where is YOUR evidence that they don’t, or is it just something you pulled out of your butt because you and ten of your mates enjoy partaking in discrimination?

brett says:

07:12am | 26/02/10

John, you are right. And Kim you are “forcing it down our throat”. You are pushing for laws to be changed of which I believe the majority of Australians don’t want changed.  Nobody is stopping you from taking another man to bed, but marriage should be held for man and woman. It’s a traditional institution of white wedding gown and dark suit. What’s the problem with upholding traditional values? You got all the same rights, just call your same sex union something else like Gaylessage, don’t steal our traditional values.

Peter says:

09:28am | 26/02/10

Mere tokenism - married or not, gay marriage will NOT be condoned by the MAJORITY of the Australian public

Josh says:

09:38am | 26/02/10

John, How do you base this: “BTW non-gays were refused entry to the party last year and are still excluded unless invited”

Tickets are available through ticketeck, and all you need is a credit card…no proof of sexual orientation required.
Even if you don’t have a credit card, you can go down to ticketeck and pay in cash! No invite required…

The only reason someone would be refused is if they were off their heads (which they probably would still be allowed in anyway)

I believe tickets sold out weeks before the party, so you can’t just show up on the night

Stop spreading your anti gay hysteria and have a fab mardi gras

TC says:

01:43pm | 26/02/10

Im with John.

If Garry and Greg want to make a commitment to their shared love you can get a lawyer to draw up an agreement and call it Garriage.

Lisa too is on the money. I see no evidence that the government is not representing the will of the people on this issue.

Kim, you most definitely are shoving it down our throats

Gary says:

10:36am | 26/02/10

Does this mean T, that you think that people should be allowed also then to sell and do drugs? They aren’t hurting anyone (except themselves). Not the same topic I know, but I find this"if it doesn’t hurt anyone I can do what I want” argument to be very shortsighted and quite flawed.

Gary says:

10:41am | 26/02/10

and also do you agree with bigamy? thats not hurting anyone?

astrosodi says:

03:50pm | 26/02/10

Hi Gary. While I agree a simplistic argument like ‘If it doesn’t hurt anyone else, let it be’ might be short-sighted and doesn’t consider broader ideas of ‘affecting or hurting other people’, likewise I must point out:

(1) Society already does allow people to buy, sell, and do drugs unless there is radical and overt financial or direct and immediate physical harm to perosns. By this, I specifically refer to alcohol and tobacco, and to a litany of prescription drugs, that have addictive negative affects on people both financially and physically, and on the broader community in terms of health care costs, etc. These are allowed, in part, because the are a ‘right’ for people to enjoy, and have financial benefits in terms of revenue for govts which can be put to other uses. It’s a risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis that sees some drugs (and I’m not suggesting, wrongly) are prohibited or criminalised. Alcoholic mum or dad are pretty devastating on families.

(2) ~Some~ religions, including Christian faiths, that so categorically condemn consentual homosexual relationships on a moral basis actually allow, promote and practice polygamy.

Paul Horn says:

12:10pm | 26/02/10

Great idea old Bert! I could see Krudd exhorting his proletariat to turn Gay for the economy!! The Gay solution to the GFC!!!

While we are at it what about bisexuals?  We could legislate to allow bisexual to get married twice as long as it is to a different gender.
Just think what that would do for the countries coffers. Think I might become a marriage celebrant!

Kat says:

04:49pm | 25/02/10

can’t agree more Randal.

TC says:

01:57pm | 26/02/10

” put simply the love and bond between a man and women or same sex couples is identical”. Really? Correct me if Im wrong but one of these unions potentiall results in a family

You are right that it shouldnt be a political issue. It should be an issue at all

Lyle says:

04:22pm | 01/03/10

TC, are you claiming that an infertile woman should not be able to marry, beacuse the marriage will not result in childen? 
Marriage is a bond between two people, family is a totally different issue.  For instance, an unmarried heterosexual couple with children.  I’m sure you have a very strict view of this matter, too, but leave it at church and out of my parliment.

Madeleine says:

10:18am | 25/02/10

Seriously?

Surely in a democracy there aren’t many more important issues than equal civil rights?

GLBTQ are essentially being treated as second-class citizens by being denied a right that the rest of us take for granted. By improving public hospitals and job security, we are improving people’s quality of life. By legalising same-sex marriage, we are doing much the same thing as being seen as not worthy of having the right to get married by your government and in the eyes of the law, and by extension, society in general, just because love someone of the same-sex can understandably be very emotionally taxing.

Macon Paine says:

12:12pm | 25/02/10

You’d only vote for the Greens huh? Surely your kidding! Kind of defeats the purpose of democracy dont you think? The irony of course is that if they had their way thats the only option you’d have.
Sorry Sarah that was a cheap shot!
Anyway I completely agree with you that public hospitals & public transport are beyond a joke in NSW, Labor has done a shocking job of running the state for the last 15yrs. For example, 15 rail projects announced and only 1 completed (the nigh on useless epping to chatswood link). I shudder to think of the money they wasted in the boom times under the Howard Government. I suppose when the Liberals get in they can audit the states finances for the last 16yrs and the true extent of their incompetance can be revealed.
I dont know about the Greens proving they are a credible 3rd force in NSW, I think they’ve destroyed or damaged any real credibility they could have had in the eyes of swinging voters by constantly giving preferences to one failed NSW Labor government after another. So much so that many people not on the left would view the greens as part of the problem. It would also seem like any surge of support for the greens is due to fed up Labor voters abandoning the Labor party more so than those of the middle or right of politics suddenly turning green.
By the way a hung parliament would be disasterous for NSW, at a time when we desperatley need government to start fixing and building infastructure etc, the government would be paralised and unable to do anything. Why would you want that?

In regards to the OP, as a Libertarian I have no legitimate objections to Gay marriage. I say if people can marry their dogs (yes this happens) and the dogs have no idea whats going on, then it’s fairly hypocritical to not allow two people of the same sex to enter into a marriage. In fact I remember reading somewhere that during the 12th or 13th century the Catholic church actually recognised or should I say allowed gay unions for a brief period of time.

Steely Dan says:

01:55pm | 25/02/10

@Macon
“Kind of defeats the purpose of democracy dont you think?”
How is voting defeating the purpose of democracy?

bella starkey says:

10:40am | 25/02/10

or a man and two women, or three, or a goat

Gavin says:

10:42am | 25/02/10

“The word marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman.”

We are all aware of this, but to date no one has been able to explain WHY this is so. It’s a statement of fact, not a reason in itself. Why keep things the same for the sake of sentimentality? Calling it something different for gays does not address this question.

Keegan says:

10:46am | 25/02/10

I think this misses the point - the community understands what a marriage is, and the legal rights alone do not make a marriage. I think a separate system actually reinforces discrimination.

If we were to apply the same logic to previously cited examples, what you are suggesting would be the following:
- Give women democratic participation, but just not the vote. Perhaps an advisory committee or inviting CWA in to visit Parliament house. That way men get there own way to participate and so do women.
- Recognise aboriginals, but can we not call them citizens. Perhaps we could set up their own identification system and a registry (like a dog registry) rather than births, deaths and marriages that records all of their particulars. That way white people and black people are both happy.

Steely Dan says:

11:03am | 25/02/10

“The word marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman.”
And the word ‘vote’ had always been the right of a white, male land-owner to choose his representative. 

Then we changed it.  I think we did the right thing.  And we still called it ‘voting’.

Martin G says:

11:45am | 25/02/10

The people who have replied to me are against my proposal. Fair enough.

However, I am with you on the major point, I agree gays should have their rights to form life partnerships, and have all the benefits that come with it, but you still claim my solution constitutes discrimination. I could claim this country is discriminatory for not allowing polygamistic marriage. Does that mean we are going to change it simply because a minority of people hold the belief it’s the right thing to do? You want it change? We are in a democracy - vote for someone who wants to change the laws of marriage.

You can scream all you like about discrimination and bigotry but the fact is there is a sanctity about marriage - it is special bond between a man and woman - and has been like that for *thousands* of years. Gavin says, “Why keep things the same for the sake of sentimentality?”, because much of the concept and action of marriage is based upon sentimentality. I offered you an alternative which is not discriminatory (heterosexuals and homosexuals *are* different, like men and women, no matter how you might use PC rubbish to spin it), but you all appear to be missing my point.

Gays have their own opportunity to create something special only they can have, but decide to kick dirt in the face of suggestions like mine. As yet I have not seen anything that defeats the logic of my suggestion, other than unfounded claims of discrimination.

Steely Dan says:

12:14pm | 25/02/10

@ Martin G
“I could claim this country is discriminatory for not allowing polygamistic marriage. Does that mean we are going to change it simply because a minority of people hold the belief it’s the right thing to do?”
No, you’d change things because it IS the right thing to do, whether its a majority or minority opinion is not important.

“the fact is there is a sanctity about marriage - it is special bond between a man and woman”
Have you experienced both heterosexual and gay marriage, Martin G? 

“and has been like that for *thousands* of years”
The age of a norm tells us nothing but how old it is.

Nobody is forcing the churches to officiate, or the congregations to like it.  But the government has a word for when people enter into a committed relationship, and we call it marriage.  The term has existed for thousands of years, and has been used across a lot of cultures to refer to a lot of different types of relationships.  Calling gay marriage anything other than marriage IS demeaning.  If Kooris and Murris went to the polls to exercise their right to ‘Aboriginal Representative Selection’ rather than just ‘voting’ like everyone else, I would hope you’d see it as weird and demeaning too.

Louise :-) says:

01:02pm | 25/02/10

“If homosexuals are given the same rights of union under law, with a different name, doesn’t that make everyone happy?”

Martin, this sounds a lot like the “separate but equal” policy that was in place in the southern states of the US and meant white Americans and black Americans couldn’t drink from the same fountain, use the same toilets, travel in the same section of the bus.
Perhaps you mean well but a “separate but equal” policy is by its nature not equal. Calling it anything other than a marriage will automatically imbue it with less value in the eyes of most and thus defeat the entire purpose of equality.

Teepee says:

03:04pm | 25/02/10

“Does that mean we are going to change it simply because a minority of people hold the belief it’s the right thing to do?” This is the nature of modern politics. The minority screams loudest and thus gets their way. Look at the propsed Internet filter.

“...it is special bond between a man and woman…” Why? You still fail to answer the question.

“... - and has been like that for *thousands* of years” So what. Just because we’ve always done it that way doesn’t mean it’s right. Tradition is just a fancy word for living in the past.

Mark says:

03:32pm | 25/02/10

I agree with Martin totally. Want a reason why it can’t be called ‘marriage’ ? because ‘marriage’ by DEFINITION is formed between a ‘husband’ and ‘wife’.
If it is a rights issue then just accept it with a new name, but trying to change the definition of a word is just antogonising the segment of society who beleive in the true defination marriage (which is quite hypocrital I think).

GlendaSings says:

04:27pm | 25/02/10

The claim that marriage has been only between a man and a woman for thousands of years is ignorant and incorrect. In many societies around the world over time, marriage is a term that has been used for heterosexual relationships, polygamist relationships and same sex relationships. The concept of marriage exists in cultures outside of Christianity, and predates Christianity. Marriage is not a term that is owned by the Christian church or indeed any religious organisation.

The word ‘minority’ is thrown around a lot in this debate. While it’s true that homosexual people are a minority in every culture, they are not the tiny part that many people make them out to be. Nor is the majority of the Australian population actively religious. According to the Bureau of Stats, only 9% of the Australian population attend a religious service of any kind each week - that’s all religions, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc. Only 20% of the Australian population attend a religious service of any kind at least once each year, and that 20% includes the 9% who go weekly.

To compare to that, most estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in Western culture sit between 5% and 10% of the population.

This means that there are pretty much as many gay people in Australia as church goers. If gay people are a minority whose needs shouldn’t be served, so are religious people.

Kat says:

04:56pm | 25/02/10

the whole reason the supposed ‘sanctity of marriage’ being a man and a woman is only because those in power have chosen to keep it that way.  There is no real reason for it, only old fashioned beliefs.  Change happens, progress happens.  People in power too scared to change because they are afraid of upsetting the minority sitting on the right wing extreme.  I get so frustrated with the narrow minded way in which people view this.  You can go back and say it is “gods” law all you want…..it’s been that way for ever…what ever you like, but at the end of the day it IS discrimination and it needs to be changed.  WHY should it be that only a man and a woman can have a marriage?  Look at what a marriage really is - a life long union of two PEOPLE who are in love and want to be together and share life ...for life.  So how you can say it’s only for a man and a woman is beyond me.

Lucee says:

08:18pm | 25/02/10

Gavin - who cares why it is so but one thing is clear, however homosexuals may want it, marraige is between a man and a woman; end of story - well for the majority.  You find another name, thank you.

Jodi says:

01:03pm | 04/03/10

Martin I agree with everything you said - marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman - therefore marriage as such does not apply to same sex couples. I believe they should have a similar institution to celebrate their love but it should be known by a different name

Sammi says:

10:40am | 25/02/10

Hi Brando, I think you would find that California is not the most liberal of the US states. Despite our perception of movie stars, Hollywood and LaLa Land. The vast majority of California is quite conservative.
If you want liberal states you are better off long to the New England area, Vermont, Massachusetts and New York.

Kim says:

12:31pm | 25/02/10

Brando, does society need to be ready for this?  Do the public really have to vote on this?  This is about equality.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Ross says:

02:00pm | 25/02/10

Brando, why should anyone be voting on someone else’s ability (or inability) to marry? Do we then start deciding to permit vote as to who is permitted to have children (e.g. we may introduce a law which states fat people should not have children; black and white ‘mixed’ babies should not be permitted)? Every day, we permit people to do things which some people may define as immoral (e.g. destruction of environment) whilst other people think the same actions are fair in business operations. We do not put each and every one of these decisions to a vote.

As to someone else’s comments about marrying goats or animals above: this is really a stupid and ignorant comment. A fundamental element of ‘marriage’ is consent - two adults can legitimately consent to something and clearly an animal cannot consent freely (or at least, in a manner which is clearly free and publicly understandable).

Dave says:

11:19am | 25/02/10

Tex, have you heard her speak in Parliament and on the thankfully few TV interviews she gets? I am not accusing of being one but she comes accross as a complete air head…... Why the Greens are taken as a serious Party is beyond me they are a bunch of hard left radicals who if they were of a right leaning persuasion would have been preferenced out of existance by now…. On Gay Marriage if you passionately believe in it Sarah how about a referendum?

Steely Dan says:

12:51pm | 25/02/10

Yeah, how dare Sarah Hanson-Young exploit the fact she was fairly elected to parliament in order to exercise her right to free speech! Tsk tsk.

Tim says:

02:27pm | 25/02/10

Steely Dan,
she can exploit her election to parliament if she wants.
But telling the government to man up (ie. do what she wants) is a tad hypocrtical then isn’t it?

Steely Dan says:

02:39pm | 25/02/10

@Tim
“But telling the government to man up (ie. do what she wants) is a tad hypocrtical then isn’t it?”
Not at all.  She’s calling for the ALP to allow a conscience vote (a very explicit exercise of free speech), rather than being forced to toe the party line.  Seems reasonable that we hear the opinions of ALL our elected representatives, doesn’t it?

Steely Dan says:

04:17pm | 25/02/10

@Tim
“But telling the government to man up (ie. do what she wants) is a tad hypocrtical then isn’t it?”
Not at all.  Calling for an ALP conscience vote on the issue would let each elected representative get their say.  That’s not hypocritical - that’s democratic.
(My apologies if this response appears twice)

John A Neve says:

09:27am | 25/02/10

Luke,
Why would you make such a statement?
Do you support a one party system?
Think of the money we would save with a one party system, we could pay off the national debt in no time.

acker says:

09:53am | 25/02/10

Won’t happen Luke, and if somehow during the muddle of the next election campaign Malcolm Turnbull becomes a Green MP (which is possible) the Greens will spread faster than chickenpox among the middle ground voters.

Tim says:

10:35am | 25/02/10

Acker,
Malcolm Turnbull a Green? seriously?

The problem the Greens have is that they will never be a true third force in politics until they change their extreme left wing views on social policy.
The only thing gaining them votes at the moment are the disinterested voters who are sick of both Liberal and Labor mismanagement who have noone else to vote for.

formersnag says:

02:15pm | 25/02/10

Acker, There is nothing even slightly, middle ground about “the reds” they are loony, left, radical, extremists, way left, even of labour’s left factions.

bella starkey says:

10:07am | 25/02/10

How on earth do you figure this?

No seriously, I would love to know how oral sex is as bad for your health as smoking.

Madeleine says:

10:32am | 25/02/10

Heterosexual couples never have oral or anal sex?

All homosexual couples have oral and anal sex?

Also, nobody’s “actively promoting” homosexuality. Just giving gay people (and bisexuals, pansexuals etc) the right to marry like heterosexual couples who have oral and anal sex are allowed to marry.

If you’re really that worried about the health risks of oral and anal sex, maybe you should argue that those acts should be banned, rather the right of certain couples who may or may not perform those sexual acts to get married, while having no quarms about letting other couples who engage in those acts get married.

Also I’m aware of the health risks of oral sex, but I’m curious, what are the health risks of anal sex?

Madeleine says:

10:36am | 25/02/10

@bella: Oral sex as been linked to throat cancer.

natalie says:

11:03am | 25/02/10

Madeleine, a torn rectum for one which if not repaired properly could lead to long term bowel incontinence, how’s that for a health risk?

bella starkey says:

11:14am | 25/02/10

Madeleine, mouth wash was linked to cancer too, and red meat, and diet soft drinks etc. pretty weak reasoning

chris says:

11:36am | 25/02/10

hmmm…Bella’s gone a little quiet.

Kim says:

12:35pm | 25/02/10

I’m against you using the word *sex*.

bella starkey says:

12:38pm | 25/02/10

nah bella went to lunch.

Anyway, that’s a little bit bullshit. Regular sex is linked to cervical cancer, but really no reason not to do it.

I did a bit of a google about that gobbie/throat cancer claim. It’s linking HPV with throat cancer, not implausible but once again no different to regular sex. I don’t think it justifies claiming that it has ‘such a bad effect on people’s physical health’ because, really, if you got throat cancer from giving a blow job you are seriously an unlucky human.

Nor are the risk to once health as bad as smoking, nor are they inevitable.

Besides, ain’t none of you heard of a delicious thing called gardisil?

Eleanor says:

02:43pm | 25/02/10

LOLLLLLLLLLL

Seriously, wtf? Where did you get your info from? I’d really, really like to know. I need a good laugh.

Kat says:

05:01pm | 25/02/10

I can’t believe what I am reading…...seriously if you dont actually know what you are talking about, its probably best to just not say anything….hmm just a thought!!!!!!!  Ignorance like that stated in PkrPlyr comment is half the reason there is so much discrimination in this world.  People mouthing off about things they have NO CLUE about

Matt says:

05:15pm | 25/02/10

So what you are all saying is that lesbian sex is the safest sex. Go girls. Happy Mardi Gras everyon

Angela Lloyd says:

12:42pm | 26/02/10

bella starkey
Oh please.  cut it out

Aramane says:

11:12am | 25/02/10

Divine definition? Marriage existed long before it was a supposed ‘blessed sacrament’ from God. So don’t give us the whole “real definition of marriage” argument, because that’s one leaky bucket you’re holding onto.

LB says:

11:35am | 25/02/10

Oh dear god Simon, grow up.  The majority of the Germans supported Hitler, the majority of the Iraqi’s supported Saddam Husein and if you asked the majority of Australian’s would support razing our immigration levels to zero.  It doesn’t make you or the majority right.  Take a strand for what is right, and don’t hide behind the skirt of a mob.  You are either for or against discrimination - it ain’t a salad bar that you can pick and choose what you want and then leave the rest behind…

Bob says:

11:56am | 25/02/10

Democracy isn’t the same as majority rule. It’s about protecting minorities from the mob.

Markus says:

12:47pm | 26/02/10

“The majority of the Germans supported Hitler” Godwin’s Law strikes again!
This is not about discrimination anymore. The argument SHOULD BE that gay couples should receive the same legal rights as married couples, and providing those legal rights and benefits would remove that discrimination, which I agree with. But according to the whinging on this thread, that isn’t good enough. You want the government to legally change the entire definition of the word marriage. Good luck with that!

Arcamane
Source please? Name this civilisation where marriage was performed outside of a religion that worships a god(s). Also name a civilisation where they ever allowed official marriages between two men. I’m very interested.

Simon Ingram says:

10:36am | 04/03/10

“Aramane” - Incorrect. Completely incorrect. Marriage did not “exist long before it was a supposed ‘blessed sacrement’ from God.” When do you think marriage started? What do you think was the first marriage?
Records from history that I have read tell me that God created marriage.

Madeleine says:

11:33am | 25/02/10

Ummm…but the majority of Australians support same-sex marriage. A Galaxy Poll last year found that 60% of Australians support it.

Also, if you believe that a “the minority” should not decide the law, do you think that the Supreme Court of California was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in 1948 when about 90% of Americans were opposed to it? Just curious.

In addition if you have so little respect for minority opinions then why did you quote a gay man’s opinion on same-sex marriage when his is not only *not* representive of the wider public, but also not in line with the majority of the GLBTQ community?

Tim says:

11:56am | 25/02/10

Madeleine,
that Galaxy poll was commissioned by Australians for Marriage Equality (same-sex marriage proponents).
They framed questions to get the result they wanted.
I’ve seen the same from the Australian Christian Lobby showing vast majority support for banning same-sex marriage.
Both used dodgy polling practices.

Voxpop says:

11:59am | 25/02/10

H of SA - I don’t agree, and I usually find your comments to be well thought out and considerate (even though I know you align with the religious view - I’ll come back to this soon)
Firstly to say that a minority is not worthy of equal rights is quite wrong - of course they don’t get to “decide the law” as you say, on a vote counting basis unless of course right minded people outside of their minority group support them.  This is the case - I speak with a great many heterosexuals that do in fact support gay rights to marriage and would definately vote for it.  And this is why the cause actually does have a majority support concerning a minority group.  Just as aboriginals were a minority group when they were finally recognised as citizens.

Back to the religious leaning - christians/catholics are in fact a minority (20% of the population) yet they punch above their weight in politics.  I don’t have too much of an issue with that untill a pollie like Abbott comes along and is all too ready to abuse his position by making the separation of church and state a fuzzy line to suit his own agenda rather than for democratic governance.  I also see opposition to gay marriage coming from two camps - religious ideology and redneck homophobes.  I sincerely hope that they are in fact the minority.

Sounds like you only give weight to the guys reasoning from the London Times because he fits your preconceived opinion and he’s thinking of going straight.

H of SA says:

01:33pm | 25/02/10

Hey all,

I guess that’s the problem with a short post - its not clear enough what I was trying to articulate. So first:

@Madeleine: As Tim has alluded to, there are some problems with polling - lies, dammned lies and statistics and all that - for starters to me I would like to know what precisely the question was. For example, if asked “Are you for or against gay marriage?” I’m unsurprised if 60% say they are for it. But if the question becomes a little more nuanced and starts to take in the complexities of what marriage act reform would mean then it gets a little more interesting. (indeed it seems strikingly weird to me this article comes from federal politician - as the marriage act is a state act).

What would be the response if the question was: Do you support Gay marriage and would you like to see this as a priority to go throuhh parliament in the next election cycle?

Or perhaps even more interesting: Do you support gay marriage and would you like to see the government time and resources committed to this as a priority matter?” (Bearing in mind that for example, our family courts are exceptionally overworked and if divorce rates of homosexual couples match those of heterosexual couples then much more public money and infrastructure will need to be committed to hiring judges/building more court rooms ect).

I reckon the “yes I support this” rate would drop a fair way below 60%.

My theory (I have no proof of this its just my intuition is this) there is a minority in Australia who are either strongly for or against gay marriage. The vast majortiy of Australians couldn’t care less - and would find the drama that would surround the bill quite confusing. Some would also be very pissed off that a bill for only a very small part of the community was sucking up so much of parliaments time when the majortiy would want more pressing law reforms to be parliament’s priority.

And don’t think it wouldn’t take a lot of time, you change the marriage act and you have to change a whole stack of other acts to accomodate it, marriage being a factor in a whole range of welfare/benefits and community and resource allocation bills.

It would be an exceptionally long and expensive process for a very small part of Australias community. I can’t remember which academic said it but I read recently that, although society isn’t perfect (in some cases its got shocking problems) any drastic change in society needs to be worth what it will cost (not just financially but in terms of the upheaval’s cost to the lives of that societies members) - when we are talking about major law reform for a small few, the question needs to be asked is it worth it?

@Vox Pop, first you seem to have gotten my politics pretty good. I’m slightly left of the centre on most things (very much pro-refugees) but usually conservative on the moral issues. And yes my faith influences my opinions as I argue for government compassion but Christian morality (not than people Christian or not live up to the standard, however its a worthy goal).

Additionally don’t worry Vox I understand and support the seperation of church and state (render onto Caeser what is Caeser’s and onto God what is God’s). Though I think we should vote according to our beliefs and conscience, so the Christian voice is heard democratically in accordance with its percentage of the society. Churches do have a strong influence in Government -  I think because without them the welfare system would collapse (I work for a govenment organisation and we wouldn’t be able to do our job without the church charities running their own services for our clients - we can’t do it alone without raising taxes majorly, but with the church charities working in partnership the job becomes far more manageable).

Now to both Vox and Madeline, there seems to be an allusion I am showing minorities disrespect here, I would say how so? I am not too up to speed on other states legislation but here in SA you can basically get the same government goodies married couples get anyway if you live with another person in a long term domestic partnership - regardless if that peron is the same gender or if your relationship is sexual or not.  So I don’t see disadvantage there - and even if there is positive discrimination to heterosexual married couples, many studies across cultures show that supporting heterosexual marriage is good social policy in terms of outcomes for the whole of society.

And Vox, re majority support for Aboriginal (minority rights) Its obviously a very different case, the majority never invaded a homosexual continent imposed the disadvantage on the homosexual cultures living there . I also think the Aboriginal disadvantage is on a different scale and type.

Also FYI I dug up the Times link, I do admire the guys courage as he must have known he would cop it bad for going public with these opinions:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article6990013.ece

Astrosodi says:

03:26pm | 25/02/10

H of SA: Hi there. Just to point out that the Marriage Act id actually a federal law; it is one of the prescribed matters that the Constitution delegates to the Commonwealth Government, and the States are prohibited from enacting any legislation inconsistent with the Federal statute. Therefore, the only way to change the law, ~if~ the law is to be changed, is by the Federal parliament.
At best, the States can do what Tas and ACT have done and legislate for a separate system, provided that that system does not end up covering the same issues as the marriage Act. Tas has implemented a Relationship Register, so you just go along and add your names to a list. No celebrations, not ceremonies. The ACT has gotten around it by legislating a system that is only available to same sex couples—the ACT system states that people who could marry under the Marriage Act cannot use the Civil Union system—so heterosexual couples are prohibited from entering Civil Unions.
I am a gay male, and have been in a stable and happy relationship for 8 years. Just like in the heterosexual community, there are a range of people and a range of relationship types. I knopw heterosexual couples with open sexual relationships, I know heterosexual couples opposed to marriage, I know heterosexual couples who’ve had civil marriages, and likewise heterosexual couples who have been happily married before a church.
To me, does it matter if my ‘union’ is called marriage? Maybe not. But I would like to hvae a choice abotu making a firm and overt commitment to a partner who my family loves and who loves my family. He contributes as much to our family as my brother-in-law; he’s called Uncle ny my nephews and nieces, my parents adore him, and yet they can;t acknowledge him in a culturally sensitive way as they can my married siblings spouses. Language is a source of power; that’s long been recognised. You change whole perspectives and attitudes by changing so few words as they aren;t noticed, but then a few more change, and then a few more, and soon global warming becomes ‘a greta big new tax’ or ‘civilian deaths’ becomes ’ collateral damage’.

My view? I would promote the ACT system over the Tas system (depsite congratulating Tas—perhaps surprisingly—on being the first State in Australia to do something about the issue) because I would like to have my family and friends with me on a day that I choose to celebrate my relationship and my commitment. I am always very happy to go along and ccelebrate other people’s commitment; I’d like the chance to celebrate mine.
And as for whether a ‘major law reform for a few’ is worth it, if it is designed remove inequality (whatever form that takes), I’ll always support such a reform, because we’re all in the minority on one issue or another, and someday it will be my turn (even though this is sorta my turn, seeing as I’m gay, lol).
Anyway, that’s my two cents.
Cheers, astrosodi

Steely Dan says:

04:23pm | 25/02/10

“Its a democracy and in a democracy the minority does not decide the law.”
In practice, you’re usually right.  In theory, we shouldn’t be denying the rights of a minority without good reason.  ‘I just don’t like it’ is not enough, even if that view is held by the vast majority of voters.

I’m sure you’ve heard of the phrase ‘tyranny of the majority’ before.  Not allowing gay marriage is a clear case of discrimination on the basis of sexuality.

Phil says:

04:59pm | 25/02/10

Madeleine

I would be happy for this to go to a referendum this year. Unfortunately for your cause I think you will loose. I have no problems with gays, lesbians etc, however for the next 30 years I cannot see this happening.

Whilst people of this persuasion may feel discriminated against, what if 10 buses of westies turned up in their stubbies and thongs to the Mardi Gras. Would they be allowed to march. Not a chance. Whilst I agree with this stance, it is in fact discrimination, just as you state not allowing gays access to marry is.

As is mentioned above Polygamy is outlawed in this country, so is gay marriage.

Voxpop It is not likely to happen. Try as you will not a chance. The greens would get probably 70%+ of the gay vote now, and they are hardly a force to be reconned with.

I personally have an issue with their pro legalisation of drugs policy, therefore they will never get my vote.

Madeleine says:

11:48am | 25/02/10

How is same-sex marriage not a revelant issue? 60% of Australians support it according to a Galaxy Poll conducted last year, and if the issue doesn’t directly affect you, it’ll affect at least one member of your family or some or your friends or some of your work colleges.

Also, religious zealots are representative of the majority of Australians?

Paul Horn says:

11:46am | 26/02/10

Madeleine well to test that theory do you reckon two blokes holding hands strolling through a local suburban shopping centre and staring lovingly into each others eyes would get 60% approval rating? I would say that said gentlemen would run a very high risk of being subjected to threatening language or at the very least feeling rather strong body language expressing disgust or revulsion.

Most Austalians are morons. They are unable to think past only what is in their self indulgent best interests. We have had a massive one sided attack by the damned stinking media expressing huge support for Gay Issues. You only have to look at this publication! What at least half a dozen journalists have vouched their support for Gay Marriage and perhaps one I think that has vouched for the nay sayers but he was not a journalist.

The media determine the social agenda. It is they who now preach and dictate to people what is moral or rather “cool” and modern. This used top be the preserve of the Church but after concerted attacks from the 60’s elites and their philosophical offspring thier role has been all but wiped off the face of the Earth.  It’s OK to preach the religion of atheism in politics but woe betide any Christian that raises a moral voice in the perverted wilderness!

Punch On !

Madeleine says:

11:36am | 25/02/10

The majority of Australians support same-sex marriage. A Galaxy Poll last year found that 60% of the population support it.

Brad Coward says:

12:07pm | 25/02/10

This is the third time that Madeleine has provided this info.  Maddie….we’ve got the information !

Madeleine says:

01:01pm | 25/02/10

@ Brad, well obviously some people haven’t seen it or are ignoring it. Just making sure they haven’t missed it.

Darryl Price says:

11:14am | 25/02/10

Please provide the results of one of these polls and the source. Even better, give us a link to one. Or stop peddling lies.

Tim says:

11:49am | 25/02/10

Sorry but there has only been one poll i’ve seen that showed a majority supported same-sex marriage.
It was commisioned by Australians for Marriage Equality (same-sex marriage proponents) and framed the questions in the poll to get the results they wanted. Most other polls either show apathy towards the issue or fairly even support on both sides.
If a referendum was called it would definitely not get up. The chances of getting the double majority needed to win a referendum on this issue would be slim.

Madeleine says:

11:59am | 25/02/10

@ Darryl Price: The most recent poll (to my knowledge) was a Galaxy Poll conducted last year which found that 60% of the population support same-sex marriage.

Madeleine says:

12:58pm | 25/02/10

@ Tim: Sorry, but there are at least *two* polls that show a majority of Australian’s support same-sex marriage. The other was a Galazy conducted in 2007 (not by Australian Marriage Equality) and it should that 57% of the public supported same-sex marriage, with 71% believing that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as de facto heterosexual couples.

Kim says:

12:44pm | 25/02/10

Ha Charles.  If you can persuade more than one woman to marry you - go for it!

Charles Kelly says:

09:17pm | 25/02/10

But it’s illegal Kim.

So Kim, if it’s “equality for all” that’s really the issue here, WHY out of over 150 comments is there only ONE mention of polygamy? It appears to me that many people don’t really want “equality for all” at all.

Kallan says:

02:28pm | 25/02/10

Got to love how everyone in here is calling for equality, yet you’re labelling religious teachings as “dogma”. Hows that for equal respect?

Aramane says:

03:25pm | 25/02/10

Seriously Kallan you have no idea what ‘dogma’ means do you? Its a series of principles and tenets, as those laid down by a church. Thats what churches do, they lay down principles by which they expect their congregation to follow. That is dogma. The fact that you associate a negative connotation with the word is your own failing, not anyone else’s.

Viznicky says:

05:48pm | 25/02/10

@Kallan:
Dogma:a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2.a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3.prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4.a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

What else do you suggest that we call religious teachings? Seems to fit to me.

David says:

12:26pm | 25/02/10

Chris - Sarah Hanson Young is married (to a man), and has a young child. Further, there are openly gay Greens members (ie. Bob Brown) who have quite publicly ‘laid their cards on the table’.

Leigh says:

11:21am | 26/02/10

Chris - Do you not understand that every political party attracts certain sections of the community - yes the Greens may attract gay party members, I would expect this to be due the Greens respect for the gay community in treating them as equals…

If you have an issue with this - then do you have an issue with the Labor party attracting Unionists - maybe that is a conflict of interest when IR comes up… How about Liberal party members, do you think they are attracted to the party because of their conservative views… should they stay out of the abbortion debate (ie Tony abbott) due to his strong affiliation with the catholic church - I think that IS A REAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST…...

AND - so what if the greens aren’t just about the environment… and if they have a so called ’ radical social agenda’ - that’s their choosing and if people want to support it - that’s their choice… we live in a democracy remember….

Seriously…. get a life…..

chris says:

10:54pm | 26/02/10

I just went out and purchased a life, while I was there I checked the mail.
Sadly, still no letter from the Greens with the full list I requested…would anyone else like to supply one? Only those who have outed themselves already in one form or other of course (better supply references to make sure it is published).  Hmmm I seem to have touched a nerve with the social propagandists.

Dan says:

11:48pm | 25/02/10

You’re a stain on humanity.

James says:

03:46pm | 26/02/10

What are the consequences then Yuty?  Please, tell us ignorant plebs.

Sexual orientation is innate - a person is attracted to what they are attracted to.  Telling kids that gay marriage is legal is not going to change their sexual orientation.

chris says:

11:17pm | 26/02/10

James, you see, sexual orientation is not innate. A person chooses to take a deviation from the norm. The norm in the human species is demonstrably male and female, this is actually how we make more males and females. Sure, gayness can be influenced by home environment, peer pressure etc. but it is still a choice. The so-called “gay gene”  promoted so vigorously by so many of the gay lobby who are working up such a lather on this web page, has been scientifically stamped on, but of course as usual, the correction to the science gets either a tiny fraction or nil space compared to the original hype.

James says:

12:23pm | 01/03/10

I disagree chris.  I have a sister who is gay - she has always been attracted to women, and the years that she spent trying not to be gay were the most miserable of her life.  She tried as hard as she could to “choose” to like men, but it never worked.  For her, sexual attraction to women is as innate as you or me being attracted to women.  Thus, she can either go with the way that God made her, and accept that she feels as she does, or struggle against it and be miserable.

Madeleine says:

12:53pm | 25/02/10

Oh I see, everyone’s equal, but some people are more equal than others.

Glenn says:

03:58pm | 25/02/10

If this is the case then women should ‘give back’ the vote - you know to leave something of value for being born white and male. Equal means Equal - Male Female, Homo/Hetro, black/white.

Astrosodi says:

03:39pm | 26/02/10

Hi daveb, I understand the point you’re trying to make. heterosexual marriage, for those who respect and vlaue the tradition) is something special and should be celebrated. Heterosexual couples who legitimately, voluntarily, and lovingly enter into marriages are creating something special—no doubt. But I also undertsand the counterpoint that by saying purely because a homosexual couple are given a ceremony called the same thing then that automatically dimisnishes the meaning fo the heterosexual couples does imply that it is don;e so because the homosexual couples commitment is of less value or importance, or that the heterosexual couple is somehow tainted.
Do I have an answer. the more I think about it and listen to people on both sides, the more I think that marriage should be split—but perhaps not necessarily between ‘heteros’ and ‘homos’. I appreciate that a religious marriage is different from a civil marriage. Perhaps people should be able to elect a civil marriage or a religious marriage. The religious marriage would, based on the position of the church involved, be open pretty much only to heterosexual couples (unless they change their teachings and policies). Civil marriage could be open to either heterosexual or homosexual couples.
I don’t know—perhaps too the way forward is one step at a time. While I’m not religious myself, I have met and known many wonderful people who are. Ask a heterosexual devout Catholic and marriage means something a bit more than what it means to an atheist heterosexual. Even within the heterosexual community there is a division between religious and civil undertsandings of marriage, even to the point where some devout faiths allow polygamy despite it being banned by the civil system.

Madeleine says:

12:51pm | 25/02/10

The issue does concern the majority of Green voters. 82% of Green supporters believe in the right of same-sex couples to get married. Same-sex marriage is an important issue because civil rights for all is a vital part of modern democracy.

Glenn says:

04:00pm | 25/02/10

Therefore, as an atheist, I want you to keep religious teachings out of schools. What you believe should be kept in your own home and not indoctrinated into our kids.

Madeleine says:

12:28pm | 25/02/10

It’s not so much that violence is increasing (e.g. the homocide rate has remained steady over the years), it’s just that it’smore widely recgonised and less tolerated .

Now that we have a more open and less conservative society we can aknowledge and discuss, and thus try to prevent, such problems as domestic violence and rape. Sure some types of violence appear to have increased, such as alcohol-fuelled violence on the streets, but this has less to do with a move away from Christian values, and more to do with extended trading-hours.

Also, are you seriously comparing homosexuality and paedophila? The former involves perfectly legal sex between consenting adults, while the later involves the statutory rape of child.

Kim says:

12:52pm | 25/02/10

Old School - What?  Are you saying gays are paedophiles?  There’s a big difference between 2 same sex people who wish to have sex and forcing a child to have sex.  Grow up!

( btw - I reaaallly wanted to put the grow up in caps)

Madeleine says:

12:39pm | 25/02/10

Sorry to disappoint you, Scotty, but the poll I’m quoting from wasn’t conducted during the Mardi-Gras and is perfectly legitimate.

Astrosodi says:

03:45pm | 25/02/10

Hey Scotty, at what figure does something become relevant enough to deal with? Not all 27,000 responses would have been pro, either. So on that logic, not enough people ‘objected’ so why prevent it.
As I mentioned ina previous post, we’ll all end up being in the minority on some issue that negatively affects us, and I’d hope that I’d be wouldn’t feel inclined to say ‘Sorry Scotty, I just don’t care enough to bother’ when it comes to listening and deciding on the issue (one way or the other) when you’re in the minority affected. Not saying you have to supoort it, but apathy is worse than objecting, imho. You might not support me, but at least I know you thought properly about it. That’s all I can ask.
I am always listening to people who object as well as support, because they can often give me something to consider that I might not have thought about.

Glenn says:

04:08pm | 25/02/10

Amen (pun intended).

As a athiest I’m free to get married in a legal sense by simply signing a marriage certificate and speaking a few words to a official celebrant. Bingo I’m married.

Yet if tomorrow I wanted to make a life long commitment to someone of the same sex that right disappears for no reason other than some religious people don’t like the idea that a man can love a man or a woman can love a woman?

Scott Glennon says:

01:34pm | 25/02/10

I know someone that should be shot..

Eliza says:

05:21pm | 25/02/10

Who should be shot? Those who are gay or those who are homophobic?

Scott Glennon says:

01:37pm | 25/02/10

@BW, your children may well turn out to be gay… So yes they should be taught. I’d have no issue with my children being taught anything at school, why limit your childs education?
One way or another they are going to learn it, why not have it done in a safe and controled environment?

BW says:

02:12pm | 25/02/10

Nice try Scott, but I don’t buy into your moral relativist rubbish. When I have children they will be taught moral absolutes, and that homosexual sex, and indeed any sexual act outside the bounds of marriage, is inappropriate. It is a parent’s right to teach their children about moral conduct, and there is no way I will let you, or anyone of your ilk pretend to teach my children that dangerous and unhealthy sexual activity is the moral equivalent of the fulfilling sex of committed heterosexual marriage.

Cameron Price-Austin says:

02:33pm | 25/02/10

Who said anything about it becoming part of the curriculum?

This is about whether to allow homosexual marriage or not. No-one is threatening your ‘right to teach [your] children about moral conduct’.

Scott Glennon says:

02:59pm | 25/02/10

@BW, I couldn’t hold out until marriage unfortunately.. Which is my point. The gay community of Austrlaia would like the same opportunitty and rights you have. Just because you don’t like the act of gay sex and beleive it’s filthy does not mean people will stop doing it. In fact it is as equally morally fulfilling as your own version.
Furthermore, I hope your children are prepared to be bought up on your moral high ground and don’t drop off into the riff raff below with us, but also gain smarts that your unable to teach them.

Dan says:

12:01am | 26/02/10

My sex ed was had absolutely 0 association with marriage at school. Though considering the sexual practices the prudish religious seem to engage in while trying to remain ‘pure’ before marriage, perhaps classes in Oral and Anal Sex would be appropriate.

You’re an idiot.

BW says:

09:05am | 26/02/10

Wow, stoop to name-calling and labels, congratulations. Your attitudes are so defeatist - “oh, it’s going to happen anyway, may as well let them do it”. Sorry, I don’t buy into that. If we never expect high standards of moral conduct from ourselves, we’ll never expect them from our children.

Scott glennon says:

11:57am | 26/02/10

@BW, you want the gay community to lead a moral lifestyle? How are they do meet your high expectations if you are not in support of gay marriage or other improvments to their cultures rights? They’ll all be rooting before marriage and being immoral all over the place! What a mess it’ll be!
BW, by your expressed disinterest and outlined expectations of the gay community; I’ve concluded that your really not here to talk about gay marriage. Your really here to talk about yourself and how wonderful life would be if everyone were as perfect as you.

James says:

03:56pm | 26/02/10

I hate to break this to you BW, but if your kids are going to be gay, telling them it is immoral will not change that.  If they turn out to find homosexual sex more fulfilling than heterosexual sex there is nothing you can say that will change that.  All it will do is mess them right up.  But, to paraphrase your post, it is a parent’s right to mess their kids up psychologically.  A better way of going about it is to love your children for who they are, and support them in every way you can.

Cameron Price-Austin says:

01:27pm | 25/02/10

That’s true, but I’m not sure it’s the same thing.

To be blunt, popular opinion has very little place in the debate on capital punishment. CP is intended as a crime deterrent, so any policy decisions should be evidence-based and framed around how well (if it all) it achieves that objective.

Marriage equality is about civil rights and any policy must reflect the moral values of the community. Public opinion is therefore much more relevant.

Scott Glennon says:

01:41pm | 25/02/10

Australia does not support Capital Punishment… and is about to ensure it doesn’t indefinitely, with a new bill. So your kinda left with a lack of argument here.

Madeleine says:

01:43pm | 25/02/10

The majority want a free vote on Capital Punishment or the majority believe that Capital Punishment should be re-introduced? If it’s the later, that’s completely false. 2 out of 3 Australian’s believe people convicted of murder should not face the death penalty according to a poll conducted last year by Roy Morgan Research.

Saskia says:

08:59am | 26/02/10

By your twisted logic then popular opinion should have little do do with any pet issue you have!  What a joke.

Australians overwhelmingly want the death penalty for cold blooded killers, serial killers, paed killers and terrorists.  I could cite dozens of polls and surveys that show this.

Your Roy Morgan Poll is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Scott Glennon says:

11:14am | 26/02/10

@Saskia, once again the topic does not relate to Capital Punishment. I think you perhaps have an opinion but are too lazy to educate yourself about the issue.
“This is what the majority wants” is a statement you should really back up. Fortunately I’d suggest you’ll find your incorrect.

Madeleine says:

06:25pm | 26/02/10

@ Saskia. Do you have any links to surveys that show a majority of Australians want the death penalty re-introduced?

Scott Glennon says:

02:01pm | 25/02/10

Peter you may find it amusing, but homosexuals are not intrested in marrying frogs or someone of the oppersite sex.. Nor do they want a new right, they are asking for the same right you have to marry someone you want to root.
Peter, at present I’d suggest these alternative minorities (your example of someone wanting to marry a dog or doll, if they exsist) have more pressing matters to deal with first. For instance, Beastiality is still currently illegal in Queensland. So it would be pointless to allow someone to marry a frog, when it is still currently illegal for them to have sexual relations with the frog.

BW says:

02:38pm | 25/02/10

Sorry Cameron, but if people didn’t dig a little deeper into the claims you’re making here, they would be sorely misled. Perhaps it is because of people making wide-sweeping claims without checking the details that people have so easily fallen for the propaganda of the homosexual lobby. How many Australians, for example, think that 10% of the population is homosexual? Well, it’s a blatant lie: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ashr/papers/Sex In Australia Summary.pdf
As to the polls you cite, the first is deliberately framed to elicit an outcome in favour of same sex marriage by people who are undecided. Before the ‘conclusive’ question on same sex marriage, there is a leading question referring to situations overseas. People are deceptively led to believe this is an important issue of ‘justice’, and then proceed to give an answer that is favourable to the cause of the homosexual lobby. As I said previously, if you framed the poll differently, you would get a difficult reaction - ie. ask parents if they want their kids taught about homosexual sex at schools before asking them if they want same sex marriage legalised (as this is the undeniable outcome).
The second poll you cite isn’t even about same sex marriage - it is about anti-discrimination legislation. Fail.
The third poll is about granting homosexual couples equivalent rights - in terms of Medicare and superannuation only - which was addressed through legislation not long after the poll. Fail.
The data you cite are not conclusive, but perhaps the rejection of same sex marriage in every one of the 31 states of the US where it has been the subject of a popular vote (even in the very liberal state of Maine in November last year) is conclusive . . . despite the vocal claims of the unrepresentative and activist component of 2% of the population, people do not want same sex marriage.

Scotty says:

03:09pm | 25/02/10

But please remember, the AME and the ACE are both gay lobby groups. So there is a vested interest in the outcome, even if the poll is conducted by a third party, the questions can still be skewed to give the desired result.
Another example of a dodgy poll was John Howard’s republic referendum.

Tim says:

03:13pm | 25/02/10

Cameron,
i’ll try to find the links to other surveys when i find them.
Each of the survey links you posted were commissioned by homosexual lobby groups or same-sex marriage proponents. Getup is a well known left wing political lobby group.
These surveys were commissioned to get the results that they did. The survey showed framing bias as well as outright leading questions.
Both the first and third survey links asked leading questions to set up for the follow up question. They also didn’t give a neither option.
Example of this is in the first link they ask “Same-sex marriage is currently legal in a number of countries,.......do you think they should be recognised in Australia?” This was a set up for the second question.
If they instead had of asked “Same-sex marriage is currently banned in many countries and has recently been voted down in California,...... should same-sex marriage be allowed in Australia?”
I guarantee you would get a different answer.
The second survey is similar in that the question is framed to get the result.
Not giving a neither or don’t care option is also dodgy. If they had of asked whether you agree, disagree or don’t care I think that a possibly large proportion of the middle ground people would have gone for the don’t care option.
I don’t know what the actual figures would be in a completely independent survey but you should take these figures with a grain of salt.

Astrosodi says:

06:11pm | 25/02/10

To BW & Tim. I am happy for you to point out the potential bais in Cameron’s data, but you both have referred only to US ecamples as if that is conclusive and valuable evidence against the proposition. What about the othe rnations—some, like Spain, are very very steeped in traditional Christian faith—have legalised same sex marriage. South Africa, the Netherlands, and Norway are other examples. All very diverse in comparison to each other, with very different levels of religious observance and ethnic mix. Add those counries, like the UK, that have Civil Union systems, and there is an vast range of Western nations with value systems not in conflict with australia that have implemented Civil Unions or full marriage for same sex couples and they’re not doing too badly. The US has a lot fo things that I’d not like to see here, so let’s look at the US in a critical frame rather than as some sort of ‘truth’.

Scott Glennon says:

08:19pm | 25/02/10

@BW, I’m not sure how you even justify this as equal to the topic in discussion, but to humour you, I ask you once again, are you going to teach your boy how to have sex with another man? If he were to be turned on by his footy mates? Or expect him to find out behind your back? Your previous answer leading to “impossible” is unacceptable.
You have failed to provide a shred of evidence to disprove any of the activists outcomes (because it doesn’t exsist) other then your personal opinion (in fact the reference you’ve clearly googled and pasted states “Over three quarters of men and women agreed that premarital sex is acceptable” of which you have outlined is immoral and your child would have no bar off.) I suggest you to not contradict yourself. I can’t imagine you mincing around asking people if they’d have a problem with two dudes/chicks getting hitched, so someone looking toward the future and who represents that community has done it for you…
We are not the USA, so you shouldn’t be so keen to use them as an example, there are alot of differing opinons between USA and Australia.
You may like to refer to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Marriage which outlines countries that obviously teach how to have gay sex in schools according to your swing of topic.
There have been many ACTS and legislation introduced to benefit a minority, eventually gay marriage in some shape or form will be too.

Cameron Price-Austin says:

08:29am | 26/02/10

Like I said @BW, I’m happy to be contradicted by polls which show a different outcome. A comparison to the US is not evidence.

The second poll I cited is indeed about anti-discrimination legislation, in particular to prevent against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It’s relevant to the discussion in that it reflects public sentiment.

The third poll is about equality for same-sex couples. I understand that there were some changes to Medicare and superannuation, but again the poll is indicative of public opinion and pertinent to the question of whether a majority of Australians support marriage equality.

@Tim, not sure what you’re referring to, but all three surveys had a ‘I don’t know’ option.

Again, I agree that both AME and ACE are homosexual lobby groups and there is potential for leading questions, sampling bias and vested interests. But these are the surveys which have been done and as such are currently our best indicator of public opinion on the issue.

Tim says:

12:04pm | 26/02/10

Cameron,
they surveyer did not give a don’t care option in the question.
They only recorded a don’t care or neither result if that questioned person answered don’t care without prompting.
They asked do you agree or disagree.
They didn’t ask did you agree, disagree or don’t care.
There is a massive difference when analysing the results.

Cameron Price-Austin says:

03:28pm | 26/02/10

@Tim, what ‘massive difference’?

How is ‘I don’t care’ anything other than passive support for this issue?

If this went to a referendum, do you think there would be a ‘Don’t care’ option on the ballot paper?

Tim says:

09:00am | 01/03/10

Don’t care is passive supoort?
That is just plain stupid.
If you can’t see the difference between don’t care and support for an issue then you really need to go back to school.
Saying that a majority of people support this issue when most people actually don’t care is a complete lie.
The point is that without a large proportion of people actually caring deeply about the issue it would never make it to a referendum and should really not even be on the political agenda.

Madeleine says:

01:22pm | 25/02/10

Well, damn, that was supposed to be a reply to BW…

Matt says:

05:34pm | 25/02/10

I hate how heterosexuals have taken the word straight and twisted it to differentiate themselves from homosexuals.
What word do you think we should use instead? How about poofter or fag or queer or pansy?

Aramane says:

06:29pm | 25/02/10

Bernie the term ‘gay’ was used as a derogatory term for a homosexual man for large period of time, the homosexuals themselves did not steal it and label themselves as ‘gay’. In recent times the homosexuals have taken a derogatory term and turned it into an encompassing term - the euphamism was foisted upon those who sought to demean them it has nothing to do with their supposed shame.

Scott Glennon says:

08:46pm | 25/02/10

Good point Justin Scott, But it doesn’t hurt to influence some opinion along the way.

Justin Scott says:

09:38am | 26/02/10

Yes, but the Greens don’t influence opinion. The only people who actually listen to them are the former hippies that have now grown into middle class older people longing for the days of running through the forest naked.

The rest of their vote is the protest vote, for which they could stand on top of a hill and shout obscenities and as long as they’re not either of the 2 majors those people would vote for them.

Scott Glennon says:

02:21pm | 25/02/10

Rene, using something else other then Marriage (or the same) would not be equal. Lets say we did, and use some made up figure as an example. 5% of Australians in the year 2034 were united under the law of Civil Union. 53% of Australians in the year 2034 were united under the law of Marriage.
Does it still seem equal to you?
Not to me, Equal would be 58% of the Australian population were still engaged in Marriage in the year 2034. Personally I’d like to see the two combined as marriage or something completely different.  We are one population, we should be represented as one.

Madeleine says:

02:49pm | 25/02/10

“How is that differnt?”

Because heterosexual defacto couples can choose whether to get married or not, but same-sex couples can’t?

Marriage has also *not* always been between a man and woman. Same-sex marriage was legal and performed in Rome until 342 CE before it was banned by a Christian emperor. Also, just because relgions and religious people have had strong views on marriage and many marital tradtions can be linked to religion that does not mean they have the right to decide whether same-sex marriage should be legal or not.

rene says:

03:38pm | 25/02/10

Why is this one word causing such a fuss? The point is that for a lot of people the word “marriage” will only ever represent a man and a woman.  And generally this would be people who are religious in some form or another.  My main point is this, marriage is typically connected to some sort of religion, and nearly all religions condemn homosexuality. So one aspect is why same sex couples would want to “marry”  when the very word is basically a discrimination against them?  Either at the end of a day it is a ceremony and whether the word marriage is used or union etc is used the end result is a couple united. One simple example if different words are used to name the same ceremony (in religion) is christening and baptism?  They actually have the same end result.  Are you saying that someone who was baptised is not equal to someone who was christened?

Astrosodi says:

03:57pm | 25/02/10

Hi Rene. I don;t see it as discriminatory towards de facto same sex couples, insofar as they are exercising a choice about how they reflect their commitment. A de facto heterosexual couple can chose not to marry, to marry in a church sanctioned ceremony, or to marry in a ceremony that is civil only. whether it’s right or wrong, homosexual couples don;t have an option other than to remain de factos.

Even if the law is passed, there would certainly be many gay couples who would chose to remain de factos. It’s not about whether you are or arent;y married, or de facto; it’s about whether you have the right to chose it as an option. You may or may not agree with the terminology, but it appears that many people on this forum, even if they disagree with the ‘words’ agree that there should be the choice to reflect that commitment with something if the couple would like to.

Viznicky says:

06:48pm | 25/02/10

Rene: If my sister’s (who had a commitment ceremony in front of friends and family) relationship is to be recognised, by law, but not as a ‘marriage’, how would she decribe it? If she can’t say ‘I’m married’, would she say ‘I’m civilly-unioned’? I’m sure there must be a word, maybe you can help me out with a suggestion? You seem fairly certain the word marriage is off limits to a section of our community, so you must have thought of one.

And if they are allowed to have a civil-union but continue to say they are married, would that be illegal? Who would stop them. Eventually the word ‘marriage’ will be accepted as encompassing more than just hetero couples (as I already apply it) and there’s really not much to be done about it.

Also, would the words ‘wife’ and ‘husband’ be off-limits? Could I describe the close familial relationship I have with her partner as sister-in-law even if they aren’t ‘married’? Or would that be off limits? Being able to describe her as sister-in-law speaks more to the familial bond that we share than ‘my sister’s partner’. It seems so transient, and it’s not.

Marriage certainly isn’t the ‘only form of commitment that can be shown’, but at the moment it is one of the only ones that is off-limits to a section of the community.

Frankly, if people want to use ‘marriage’ to describe my sexual orientation (being a hetero female), rather than the serious life-long and legal commitment I have made to another person, than I don’t really want any part of it.

Scott Glennon says:

08:57pm | 25/02/10

Rene, Religon is often a choice (at least later on in life.) Refusing to give same sex couples a choice or placing them under a different definition of union within our multi cultural society is frankly not fair.
I can prove, give oath and support the love I have for another man.. Why should our government rule that emotion and dedication is any less then that a woman has for a man? Why should our government define that love differently (for example Civil Union?)

Les says:

03:31pm | 25/02/10

Good point Alex, nice and simply put.

However as there are centuries of baggage involved with making people think otherwise (about any matter) and this isn’t based on a person’s race it is still a uphill battle.

As you say religious lobbies keep pushing their limited view. By this I mean “selective” parts of their religion to follow - I say follow it all or follow it none, don’t pick and choose or you will be seen as the bigot you are.

Scotty says:

03:40pm | 25/02/10

Just wondering Madeline, what are the “real, tangible benefits”

Aramane says:

06:36pm | 25/02/10

People like this make me an advocate for eugenics….

facepalm says:

09:27am | 26/02/10

Armane - I totally agree, gay people so shouldn’t be breeding, it would be way better for humanity if gays just went away!11!1!

Oppinions are like…. things that every one have. Don’t be so quick to judge people without knowing the road they have taken to develop their feelings/position on a matter.

TC says:

02:23pm | 26/02/10

Good to see youre not into labelling people and are respecting all beleifs and lifestyles as you insist others do for you

H of SA says:

03:12pm | 26/02/10

Wow, Phil, comparing other people’s beliefs to a cancer, somehow I don’t think that will raise the tone of the debate here/convince many people of your views

Rob Hill says:

05:23pm | 26/02/10

Phil, All those civilisations you speak of were as evil then as we are becoming now! Their “faith” beliefs were far more debauched than we can even imagine today. They had thousands of “god’s” - unlike Christianity. They were ‘in fact’ SATANIC! The Romans took on this same system and even multiplied the number of “God’s”. After persecuting the Jews and Christians for a long period, they “Took Over” Christianity and modified most of it to suit their old beliefs and appease the public.  Most ‘flavours’ of Churches today follow the “cattle tick’ doctrine unfortunately. This tends to “turn off” non Christians and cause immense antaganism in them. I am definately a staunch believer and a Christian, but have nothing to do with ANY Church whatsoever!

Clementine says:

10:52pm | 25/02/10

Don’t try reading it with glasses though Francis. That’s a sin too, according to Leviticus. Oh wait. But you lot like to pick and choose your ‘sins’, don’t you?

Paul Horn says:

02:15pm | 26/02/10

God Clementine did you write your own bible? Where in the Hell in Leviticus does it say “Though shalt not read the Lord’s word wearing glasses”? They did’nt have glasses 3,000 years ago. HJust who is picking their sins here. Progressive halfwits come up with some of the most incredulous tripe when they try quoting the bible!

I think a trip to the psychiatrist for a thorough mental examination is a priority for you dear lady!

Madeleine says:

06:05pm | 26/02/10

@ Paul Horn: I can’t find a reference in Levitius about not reading with glasses, but Lev 21:20 says that no one with a “defective eye” may approach the altar of the Lord. Maybe that’s what Clementine was getting confused with.

Paul Horn says:

12:00am | 27/02/10

Well said Madeleine you actually read what the bible was saying without misinterpreting or rather misconstruing the facts to suit your own dirty filthy progressive agenda / liberal dogma!!! The likes of Clementine being a pathetic liberal journalist do that all the time - they basically lie and deceive to support their own filth don’t you Clementine.

Essentially Leviticus is an allegory to Christ - the perfect sacrifice. Those who approached Gods altar were to be without blemish representative of Gods spiritual perfection. It had nothing to do with discrimination against those with physical impediments but rather everything to do with the absolute perfection in every way of a creator God. The liberal elite could never admit that because of their own hatred and contempt against Christianity!  If you read a bit further you will find that animals also sacrificed such as lambs were without deformity. It was a method to teach the hard hearted Israelites that God demanded moral and spiritual perfection as he is perfect. Nothing to do with disgust against those with a disabliity, in fact God demanded that those who were weak or diseased were cared for and protected. Unfortunately the hard hearted Israelites failed his laws frequently with dire consequences. The fascinating thing though is that they still exist whereas all other peoples in that time have disappeared from the face of the Earth. You have to wonder don’t you? 

So dear Clementine elitist inner city dweller that you are please butt out of commenting on matters spiritual - you have no idea of what you speak of and an avid dirty desire to desecrate the Chrisitian religion with every fiendish stroke of your pen - you are nothing less than a low life hypocrite!!!!  Punch On!!!.

Scott Glennon says:

08:44pm | 25/02/10

LOL! =P

Aramane says:

06:40pm | 25/02/10

A biblical armegeddon? Are you kidding me? Said it before and I’ll say it again - people like this make me an advocate for eugenics…

Scott Glennon says:

08:43pm | 25/02/10

@loz, your argue marriage is sacred to man and woman, same sex love is misguided and that marriage results in the creation of children.
I argue that in the interest of international human rights marriage by definition, is currently discriminatory in Australia. Created by the Howard Government to prevent the union of same sex couples. Therefore man made and not sacred for all of time.
The emotion of love exists between same sex couples and it’s even possible to be sexually aroused by a member of the same sex I’ve found, even if you don’t understand it. I’m sure there are other acts committed by humankind you’d also consider misguided and do not understand..
Common knowledge is not all married couples are able to reproduce. In fact loz, you’ll find that some married couples refuse to reproduce. With valid legislation it is very possible for same sex couples to marry and care for a child with just as much love as you are capable of.
I think it is you who is in fact misguided.

Tim says:

12:09pm | 26/02/10

Aramane,
you do realise that one of the first things a eugenics program would target would be gay people don’t you?
I mean the first part of improving the genome would to remove genetic aberrations that promoted sex that cannot reproduce.
Hate people like loz all you want but you sound a little bit silly suggesting eugenics as the solution.

Ricky says:

06:13pm | 25/02/10

The greens are an eccentric joke.They should be kept around for entertainment purposes only.

Scott Glennon says:

11:18am | 26/02/10

So many people who “DONT” support gay marriage seem to get angry that some people hold different views…

Charles Kelly says:

10:38am | 26/02/10

Everything you said thatcherschild, highlights one major point - that official recognition under the law is the crux of the matter, NOT terminology. All of this is 100% achievable WITHOUT the gay community hijacking the word “marriage”.

I don't understand Thatch? says:

12:32pm | 26/02/10

Sorry Thatch -  cant agree with you - My parents had immigrated to Australian in 1949.  Yes that right 1949, isn’t that a long,long time ago.  In 1991 my father died and all of his (good & chattels) estate was automatically handed over to my mother. ( They did have a will).  Same apply to in-laws, same thing happened everything was legally over over to the living partner.  They have not been deigned medical treatment or any on the things that you have describe.  Is there really a gap to the extent that you have suffered?

Paul Horn says:

01:03pm | 26/02/10

Well said SUSIE it used to be that way. But then the filthy degenerate progressives in the Labour party introduced something called no fault divorce and marriage became a cursed sham almost overnight.
You would think in an age dominated by the perverted rights agenda and the pursuit of extreme individualism above all else that those who do decide to marry “for love” would remain so. But the exact opposite is true. The deceitful tripe called “marrying for love”’  as espoused in Hollywood culture is nothing but a dirty lie designed to destroy rather than reionforce. You need look no further than the back door to see what an abysmal failure “marrying for love” has become and why Hollywood that great Gay rights movement have spread copious amounts of sadness and misery in the heterosexual world.  Curse them to Hell!

Voxpop says:

10:05am | 26/02/10

Hi Darren - I’m hetero and couldn’t care less (about marriage for myself that is) but I’d defend anyone’s right to their own.  Marriage is in fact a legal document/contract - you can take or leave the religious ceremony and still be married by law. 

You are so wrong about your entitlements regarding first home buyers x 2 and full unemployment/pension benefits as singles.  See the govt legislated to give you certain rights just not all - so now you have the right to be classed as spousal/defacto and they can tax you as a couple as well as pay you less welfare same as any hetero couple.

Scott Glennon says:

11:30am | 26/02/10

@Brett, sexual orientation.

If the Australian government allowed same sex couples to marry perhaps there would be no need to activists and those fighting for what they call their human rights to be running around bothering you. So sorry if your sick of all the noise they are making… Grow up…

James says:

03:59pm | 26/02/10

How is the right to do what heterosexual people do a special privilege Brett?

astrosodi says:

04:15pm | 26/02/10

We mess with the laws of nature every day Peter, and have done so for thousands of years. Plastic bottles don’t grow on trees. I wasn’t with glasses attached to my face. My mother doesn’t really have blonde hair (she might not like me giving away that little secret! lol). these might seem like trivial examples, and they are. But what about IVF, heart transplants, and atom bombs? 
In any argument, the moment we mention anything to do with morality we remove it from the realms of the ‘nature’ argument, because we are immediately discussing an issue that we as human beings are uniquely placed to appreciate. Sure, other animals show affection, but a cat that is infertile, stays infertile. Cruel, but that’s nature for you.
As a society, we adapt nature to suit us, and to suit or moral perspective, whether we do that via a religious outlooks, or an ethical viewpoint. To argue things solely on the basis of nature is to deny our very own humanity and say things are totally out of our hands. I appreciate that you have said you’re not ‘anti gay marriage’, and I’m not suggesting that you have to be pro-IVF or adoption for same-sex couples, but it’s a bit flimsy to suggest that solely on the basis of nature it is wrong, when we bend that rule every day for so many others. Tell me why you really object—I’m listening, seriously.

brett says:

09:12pm | 28/02/10

astrosodi, your examples are infinite, that is to say no matter what is said you will always bring forward some other example that really has little relevance. I have noticed this as common element in the argument for pro gay movement. “Even though I cannot have it, I want you to make it so I can have it. Because I’m important “. As for IVF, having children is a privilege not a right. The right is with the child. And since 95% of children are conceived by the union of a man and woman that is how they should be raised. But again the infinite examples will freely flow from the pro gay group about so many examples of heterosexual bad parents etc ect ect.
If you made the choice to be gay or “born that way” then bad luck, no babies. I mean I want to win a Gold Medal at the Olympics, but I made a choice to be lazy, or “I could say my legs were born not to run fast”.

astrosodi says:

12:30pm | 01/03/10

Hi Brett
I’m sorry if I came across as sounding liek having children was a right; that wasn’t my intention. My intention was to point out that the argument is more complex that either simple argument of “we can’t mess with the laws of nature” ~or~ that “someone else has it, therefore it’s my right too”. It’s even more complicated that pure Christian morality, given that we live in a multi-cultural society (endorsed by law) and that opens up questions that go the beyond immediate question of same-sex marriage by raising other forms of consentual relationships like bigamy. Again, I don;t mean to sound as if I am endorsing those. As you might see from my other posts, despite beign gay, I do want to discuss the many facotrs that should be raised in this sort of discussion, including options that don’t result in gay ‘marriage’. I have accepted that, as a member of a gay male couple, that I will not be a parent; I certainly do not see it as my ‘entitlement’, and I do see the joys that parenthood brings those who do and can have children. First and foremost, I do see parenthood as a series of obligations, which, if you live up to, result in a huge number of joys. But again, parenthood and marriage (or civil unions) are two very different things, and arguments about having children, while may be relevant, should not alone be determinative of the ‘marriage/civil union’ question.

Paul says:

09:37am | 26/02/10

I find Sarah’s argument that we should support gay marriage because we are currently being discriminatory fatally flawed.  Of course the law is discriminatory.  Its based on a judgement that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Any other combination is unacceptable.

If we were to follow through on Sarah’s argument, then we should change the marriage law to support a man having four wives (Islam),  or a man having a dozen or more wives (African tribes), or a woman having multiple husbands (pagan).  I don’t see that Sarah mentions any of these other combinations that are fully supported in other countries.  But in Australia we choose not to support them.  i.e by our own chose we are being discriminatory.

thatcherschild says:

10:04am | 26/02/10

Here we go again with the totally mis-guided theory that we are gay by choice….
Religion is a choice, being gay isnt, nor are we an aberation in nature, if you were to bother to read up on these things you would discover that homosexuality occurs right across the whole animal spectrum..
I would love you to explain to my parents (heterosexual couple, married in their twenties and remained together til death) that two of their children are “twisted” and responsible for the decline of of society, whilst their other two kids arent.
The four children my parents produced (one of each!)  were exposed to everything in equal measure, home life, education, church etc, we all grew up to be contributing members of society, we all work, we all pay taxes - we were born equal, we make equal contributions to society and the tax office, so why are my civil rights unequal?
I think the big problem here is that the minute anyone mentions “gay” or “gay rights”  a lot of small-minded people focus soley on one sexual act (between men) and dont look beyond this to see that we gay people are just people, and yes, we are more than capable of forming life- long, loving, devoted relationships.
Being gay isnt just about sex, like any other relationship the physical side forms only a very small (but wonderful) part, but like everyone else we have to deal with the legal system, the tax office, Centrelink and the health services.
Therefore we need the same protections in our relationships that everyone else takes for granted.
And if you think that “putting us in the dark somewhere"would somehow remove us from your perfect world you are greatly mistaken cos every day more and more gay kids are being born, usually to heterosexual parents.

Scott Glennon says:

11:07am | 26/02/10

@Melbourne, I think you’ll find Australia now considers your opinion out dated. Move forward with the rest of the country.
The topic for discussion is same sex marriage, not whether you personally like or dislike the gay culture.

chris says:

11:30pm | 26/02/10

thatcherschild-you really think we are all stupid, don’t you? This is a forum for thinking people, please don’t try your gay lobby spin here, “homosexuality occurs right across the whole animal spectrum”. Well I could argue at length that humans are not just animals but unique, however let us just cut to the chase, What is normal in one species is abnormal in another, check it out. Your argument (straight out of the mardi gras spin journal) is equivalent to saying ” hardness occurs right throughout the rock spectrum” Yeah…..and…..?

James says:

12:33pm | 01/03/10

Think about it chris.  How do you feel when you think of having sex with other men?  Is it appealing to you?  I know it is not to me.  The idea that one can choose who they are attracted to is rubbish, otherwise you would relish the thought of having sex with men as much as you do with women.  However, if you have made a choice only to have sex with women, a part of you must be gay - for me, it is no choice, it is just the way I am, so I am completely heterosexual.

astrosodi says:

04:35pm | 26/02/10

Statistically, referendums fail, regardless of the topic. Most people, being humans, are nervous about change, particularly when it swamps them as being something so important that ~everyone must vote on it now!!~

Not saying anything other than that—not intended as a comment about whether the community supports or rejects the issue. Even seemingly ‘harmless’ topics fail overwhelmingly at a referendums.

The additional issue with referendums is that it isn’t a straight-forward ‘a mjoirty wins’ scenario. Only 8 out of 44 referendums since 1906 have been carried. In Sir Robert Menzies’ words, “to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules”.

You need a double majority to affirm a referendum: that is, a majority or people in a mojiority of states. So even if 51% of people in Australia vote yes, it might not pass because 4/7 states voted no on balance. So even if all 3 of the largest states have a 90% ‘yes’ vote, if the 4 smaller states have 51% no votes, the referendum fails.

Therefore, the minority in fact usually control the outcome of a referendum. A referendum is not a ‘simple and fair vote of the majority’ like people think.

Roz Vecsey says:

04:13pm | 03/03/10

Chris,
Yes, to answer your question, I do think you are stupid, where you born that way or are you ignorant by choice?
So this is a forum for thinking people, therefore I have contributed my thoughts, as well as my experiences.
Humans arent animals?
OK, I will go with that, but why cant you accept that homosexuality happens across the board, in every species, it doesnt discriminate, it is somthing that happens to men, women, blacks, whites, across all cultures.
Please send me a copy of the Mardi Gras Spin Journal, Ive yet to see a copy, also, Ive been out for thirty years now and Ive still not received a copy of my Gay Agenda either.

Brett says:

09:38pm | 28/02/10

TC you are correct. Let me also say that a phobia is defined as an “irrational fear” or “morbid fear”. The pro gay movement love to use the word. I will tell you that the fear I have and many others have is not irrational or morbid. It’s a very real fear that the once stereotypical image of marriage between a man and woman will be compromised by the gay and lesbians groups.

Scott Glennon says:

03:48pm | 01/03/10

@TC, there are and will be gay couples residing in Australia who already have lengthy relationships. Some of them already have children or plan to. Unfortunately some previous governments actions (arguably discriminatory) have made the process of recognition a lengthy one. For example, John Howard amended the definition of marriage only recently to include only a single man and single woman.
Mardi Gras is about support for the gay community, straight people walk the parade… The Lifesavers are a good example, most are likely gay, but some have been noted as being straight.
“Your version of equality means everyone else in the community has to compromise their beliefs and their free speech lest they be labelled homophobic.” Living in a multi cultural society requires that you accept different cultures.
Just because you think a cultures life and planned future is a big waste of your time, does not mean they shouldn’t have their say in developing their rights. I’m a tax payer, I’ll discuss what I want with my government.
I wouldn’t say your a homophobe.. Maybe a selfish twit though.

TC says:

10:03pm | 03/03/10

Nice shot Scott. You got me with the selfish twit bit. That was genius. Now go tell the Surf Lifesavers you think they’re gay.

Brett says:

09:31pm | 28/02/10

thatch, you don’t seem to get it. You are trying to separate people not accepting homosexuality and people not accepting gay marriage. The two are related. The people and the government do not accept homosexuality as the norm that is why there is no gay marriage. To say this is not a debate about homosexual lifestyle and choices is just not true.
The public have a distinct image of what marriage is, and what it should be. It is very traditional and sacred and stereotypical. And what is wrong with that. We are so concerned to keep cultural traditions of Indigenous people, how about keeping one of the Western Society traditions. Would you force the Aboriginal community to change one of their traditions to suit you? Instead of taking our ancient tradition go and start your own gay marriage tradition. Maybe your name can go down in history as the first woman to join in the union of Lessage or something.

TC says:

10:19pm | 03/03/10

What Brett said.

thatcherschild says:

04:58pm | 26/02/10

Sorry, I still dont get your point, especially regarding your parents - I referred to my parents as a way of showing that being gay isnt a choice, my gay brother and I were born from the same genes as our straight siblings, we were raised in the same environment yet we are denied the same rights as our siblings.
Re medical stuff - despite the fact we have legal documentation in place legally blood relatives trump gay partners - and more to the point, should the scenario arise, why should I have to rush around looking for a legal document to present to medical staff if my partner is admitted into emergency and decisions have to be made there and then?
Incidentally, not once in my post did I mention not living my life to its fullest, cos believe me I have,.
I got me an education, got me a good job, found my life partner who imported me to paradise( thanks to the government partnership visa)
and have spent the last 10 years living as a happily married couple, and as I said before a number of govt agencies recognise the validity of our relationship.
Your final paragraph sums it up - basically I dont want you to know my position in life, its not really anybody elses business, but in naming my relationship as something other than marriage you are immediately making it not equal to marriage.
If I apply for a job, a bank account, a credit card etc I should not have to declare my sexuality by ticking a box that says single, married, or not quite married.

thatcherschild says:

05:24pm | 27/02/10

This is a debate about civil rights, not about whether or not you find gay sex appealing.
I find it interesting that your objections focus solely one one sexual act that may or may not take place between two men - what is your opinion on lesbians, do they revolt you too or do you get off on the idea?
One cannot procreate through oral sex either so I assume that isnt part of your bedroom repertoire.
I recently conducted a straw poll using my social circle, an ecletic mix of gay/straight singles/couples - over 50% of my straight friends indulge in anal sex, Im told a lot of straight men are into it, indeed, before contraception was widely available it was pretty standard in straight society.
As for what you consider “natural”(poking your nose into other peoples bedrooms and commenting on what is right) I can assure you that millions of gay people on this planet find their sexuality completely natural.
As for the physical reactions, Ithe thought of a man putting his penis into my vagina fills me with disgust, after all I would be exposing myself to all sorts of nasty germs, including some proven to cause cervical cancer, and believe me, I certainly dont become lubricated, that only happens at the hands of my female partner.
So there, youve shared your disgust, Ive shared mine, now can we get on with the grown up stuff like discussing civil rights.

Scott Glennon says:

03:12pm | 01/03/10

@Brett, you’ll find there are other ways that HIV can be transmitted, and is not limited to the gay male or gay female community.
Whats really amusuing here is your intelligence.

Brett says:

05:48am | 02/03/10

Scott thanks for your personal attack. Personal attacks often arise from a lack of intelligent argument. For your information I used to be a nurse working in infectious wards, and then later sold antivirals for the pharmaceutical companies. The highest and most prolific risk or reason for transmission is unprotected anal sex.  Unintelligent?

Brett says:

06:09am | 02/03/10

Yes observed in all mammals, so is cannibalism , paedophilia, polygamy, autofellatio, gang rape and open defecation. These behaviours are all natural too.  Why do people get into spasms about it? People need to get with the times and get over it.