NY gay marriage vote: I wanna be a part of it

Mahhrat says:

07:09am | 27/06/11

You’re copying & pasting, Erick, and the issue isn’t trivial simply because there are other important things.

I would suggest that the plight of those in third world countries trumps the unequal position of men and women in Australia.

theodore says:

07:13am | 27/06/11

“The reality is that gays can have access to all the rights and obligations of marriage except the name.”

Is this actually true? I have never been able to get a straight answer out of anyone.

Carz says:

07:15am | 27/06/11

Erick if you truly believe that marriage is an unequal partnership between men and women then you should have no problems with gay marriage. At least marriage between two men or two women the relationship is going to be equal, right?

CJ Morgan says:

07:36am | 27/06/11

You seem a bit confused, Erick. Is it a “trivial issue”, or is marriage “not some trivial bit of terminology” ?

Why shouldn’t those gays who wish to marry have the same rights as their heterosexual peers?  Denying human rights is never a “trivial issue”.

Kevin says:

07:41am | 27/06/11

I prefer the catholic view - marriage isn’t what two people in love with each other do, it is a binding contract providing a stable framework in which a couple can raise children.  Judging from the rate of divorce, marriage has become a fairly trivial concept these days and is not taken with the seriousness that it demands, the result being too many children suffering emotionally and psychologically.

LeonT says:

08:32am | 27/06/11

Immigration Erick? Marriage isn’t just a word there.

The gay lobby gets the attention because they organise and actually lobby. Why don’t you do the same?

Cloud Strife says:

08:42am | 27/06/11

FFS, why do you always have to derail everything?

Matt says:

08:56am | 27/06/11

Theodore, the ALP made it ‘better’ but not equal..  They changed laws so same-sex relationships are afforded the same rights as heterosexual de-facto relationships, still not equal though.

Jane says:

08:57am | 27/06/11

@Kevin - so does that mean people who are infertile, or are past child rearing age, should not get married because they are not able to produce children? And what about same sex couple that have children, should they not be able to get married?

Also we live in a secular country where our laws should not be based on religion.

JohnB says:

09:30am | 27/06/11

I guess there is the question. Who would get the ridiculously unfair amount in separation?

Kevin says:

10:34am | 27/06/11

@Jane
I guess what I’m saying is that our society has changed to the extent where it is more or less acceptable for two adults who love each other, be they straight or gay,  to live together.  I have no problems with that and the laws have changed to recognise a variety of domestic relationships.  You don’t need to get married to do so and, if the relationship sours, the couple can split.
However, once children are introduced, the equation changes.  The two people in the relationship can no longer just consider their respective interests.  For the sake of the children, couples ought not be planning families unless they are prepared for the long haul which includes committing to an enduring relationship.  Before family law was changed, making divorce easier, marriage embodied that commitment.
I realise that often life isn’t always that simple - despite all sorts of contraceptives, there are “accidental pregnancies; people can change over time; some dysfunctional marriages are worse for the children than if the parents separated; etc..  But I still think that before couples have children, they should know each other really well (and live together for however long that takes) and give very serious consideration to whether they are prepared to take that step.
“Marriage” now is essentially ceremonial and I have seen the situation where the time a couple spent planning the ceremony exceeded the actual length of the marriage.

Zaf says:

11:02am | 27/06/11

[This entire issue is trivial. It’s all about a word - “marriage”. The reality is that gays can have access to all the rights and obligations of marriage except the name.]

Not good enough without a really really good reason to differentiate.  So far, I haven’t seen one except “I don’t want to share” and “but I want to be special”.  Over to you.

[The real issues with discrimination in marriage are centred around the unequal positions of men and women, whereby females have all the rights and males have none. ]

Erick, I look forward to the day when you try and turn a discussion about genocide in Darfur to one about how badly men are treated in marriage, especially in Australia.

Jeff says:

02:13pm | 27/06/11

Im always amused by people who demand their basic “human right” to marry. Marriage is defined as the joining together of a man and a woman, under God, on HOLY matrimony. We didnt create it, He did. Its not a right, its a club, and like most clubs ... if you dont qualify, you cant join. Go and create another one that you can join, just like the bars, clubs, games, and marches you have in the past. Its interesting to see how homosexuals want to act “different”, but still be treated just the same. btw - can we start using homosexual again please, I want the word gay back!!!

dancan says:

02:38pm | 27/06/11

Erick is just defensive.  In a female, female marriage there’s no man to get hurt so he has nothing to cry about

CJ Morgan says:

04:30pm | 27/06/11

Sorry Jeff, you’re sadly mistaken.  Marriage wasn’t invented by any God - rather both were invented by people.  Every society on earth throughout human history has some form of marriage, and the Christian version is only a relatively recent development.

This issue isn’t even about the Christian variant of marriage - rather, it’s about the version recognised by the Australian State, which was cynically altered by the Howard government to specify that it is between a man and a woman.

I do wish you godbotherers would stop trying to turn Australia into a theocracy.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

04:51pm | 27/06/11

@ Kevin “Before family law was changed, making divorce easier, marriage embodied that commitment.”

Actually it didn’t. People were more likely to stay together because they couldn’t afford to part. Employers discriminated against married women and there was no government support for the children if a marriage broke up. Women were also not allowed to own property. Now that these discriminations have been removed, women have more freedom to leave unhappy marriages.

AConcernedCitizen says:

05:00pm | 27/06/11

Interesting enough no one seems to think we need a law against eating shell fish since you know… That is an abomination too apparently

Marty says:

08:55pm | 27/06/11

@Jane “Also we live in a secular country where our laws should not be based on religion”. So everything we have based our society and constitution on should be thrown out the f***ing window? That’s the sort just because you don’t like religion doesn’t mean the everything it says is meaningless

LC says:

09:50pm | 27/06/11

Erick, if everyone possessed the “but there’s more important things to worry about than x” attitude, NOTHING would get done until we have ended world hunger, found world peace, destroyed all WMDs worldwide cured cancer and colonized Mars.

As for the gay marriage in NY, good on ‘em I say. It’ll never happen in Oz as long as the Australian Christian Lobby has both major parties in their pocket.

Paulb says:

10:24pm | 27/06/11

Clumsy Eric, but you are right generally about the waving of distraction issues.  Gay marriage is more useful to Governments when its prohibited and argued about.  Were it to receive acceptance it would provide no further political usefulness and they’d have to find another straw-man.

Paulb says:

10:28pm | 27/06/11

Jeff.  Grow up or go post over at the Australian Family Association.  You find lots of equally stupid and gullible people there

The righteous one says:

11:29am | 28/06/11

Erick is just bitter and twisted, because he apparently thinks he has been dudded by family law.  I would have thought the decisions were reached after some consideration of the facts presented for consideration.  People are not dudded when the decisions dont go their way. They just need to accept the fact, or is Erick saying no one else has the right to whinge except him when it comes to marriage regardless of their sexual orientation.  I hope gays get what they want.

Jeff says:

12:53pm | 28/06/11

@CJ Morgan, .. Thanks CJ, I love it how you lot always attack the player and not the ball. Just because I appear to be a “Godbotherer”, ... whatever that is, is not an excuse to completely disregard everything else I said. Its still a club, and if you want to join it .. read the PDS!, or please go join another one. Why would you want to join a club that has, as its founding article, a standard that you disagree with anyway?? I wouldn’t!!

Lauren says:

09:05am | 27/06/11

But the thing is, “Between a man and a woman” is no longer what the majority of Australians think today according to the polls.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

10:00am | 27/06/11

Legislation should not be used to alter the meaning of a word. If they want all the rights, obligations and trappings - fine.
 
But let them use another word. Otherwise, their gain is our loss. If I say I am married, I expect people to know I have a wife, not have to guess if I have a husband or some other sort of partner. I don’t want to have to explain myself because they can’t be arsed using a word that denotes their own circumstances.

Phil says:

10:03am | 27/06/11

@Lauren
Its not what the polls say at all,

The polls say 75% of Australians think its inevitable not that they are accepting of it and welcome it.
Its not the same thing, to me and many many others Marriage is only ever going to be between a Man & a Woman.

Bev says:

12:02pm | 27/06/11

I dont think Kerryn is neutral.  I believe she is in a lesbian relatonship.
(somebody correct me if I’m wrong)

mel says:

12:58pm | 27/06/11

I do not believe Bev is neutral: I believe she is in a heterosexual relationship (someone correct me if I’m wrong).

Bev says:

01:28pm | 27/06/11

mel says:12:58pm | 27/06/11

I do not believe Bev is neutral: I believe she is in a heterosexual relationship (someone correct me if I’m wrong).
Yes I am.  Perhaps you should read my post further down the page. As I said there I was ambivalent about the subject but have changed my mind after doing my homework.

Jake says:

01:58pm | 27/06/11

So you’d have no problem if marriage was “Between a white man and a white woman” and black people could have basically the same rights, they just weren’t allowed to call it marriage?

This is discriminatory and highly divisive, make no mistake. Glossing over it with a glib remark like “it is just the way it is for most of us” belies a complete lack of concern for equality and human rights.

There was a time when slavery was “just the way it is for most of us”. This is one of the most blatantly discriminatory pieces of legislation that still exists and it frankly disgusts me that anybody could have the audacity to defend it under the banner of indifference.

Discrimination is always offensive.

Sodapoppy says:

02:52pm | 27/06/11

Perhaps we need World War 3 to give people something real to get their minds occupied

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

04:42pm | 27/06/11

@ Tony of Poorakistan “If I say I am married, I expect people to know I have a wife, not have to guess if I have a husband or some other sort of partner.”

Tell people you have a wife. Then there won’t be any confusion.

Zaf says:

04:50pm | 27/06/11

[If I say I am married, I expect people to know I have a wife, not have to guess if I have a husband or some other sort of partner. ]

Relax Tony.  If your real life personality is anything like your online persona, you’re clearly a man only a woman would put up with.  Peace

mel says:

08:36pm | 27/06/11

Bev, if you really were ambivalent, what is the point of the comment about Kerryn Phelps’ sexuality, apart from trying to undermine her position? The fact that you were not aware of your own bias in the matter is somewhat revealing.

Where is the even handedness that comes with ambivalence; your later posts certainly don’t show it? The only time you admit to ambivalence is so you can deny it immediately, so that you can rant against feminists, homosexuals, the greens, anyone that disagrees with you.

So how did your ambivalence manifest itself, or were you lying to make a rather silly point?

Bev says:

12:24am | 28/06/11

I have clearly stated that I was neutral but that I have changed my mind.
In a post on this page I explained why I have changed my mind and are no longer neutral.
I think it is important to know where a person writing an article stands on the subject and/or what their affilations are. If say a particular researcher comes out and says a product is good or harmless but their research grant comes from a company that makes that product are we not entitled to be somewhat sceptical. No different in this case.

I am not against homosexuality, they can have any relationship they like and call it by any name they choose, just don’t call it marriage.

I do think the greens could be a disaster for this country though I have made very few comments about them.

I also think feminists are diversive and have caused enormous damage to social cohesion and to families.

andre says:

07:59am | 27/06/11

In Biblical sense marriage is the union between man and woman becoming one body and that is based on sexual and spiritual union.
Apost;e Paul says therefore that every sin stays outside of a body apart a sin of sexual immorality which is a sin agains one’s own body. Interestlingly Paul warns agains sex with whores as then one becomes one bpdy with a whore.

Thus gays in light of Biblical idea of marriage will never become one regardless how the governmnet calls it.

if you want to argue against what God said you are free to do that but form the naturalistruc point of view you do not have too much ground for any argument against what God has said.

bec says:

08:19am | 27/06/11

Andre, if you’re so keen on everything being natural, please confirm that you would never take chemotherapy if you get a cancer diagnosis. Chemo is about as unnatural as you can get.

BL says:

08:28am | 27/06/11

@andre

How many times do you religious nutters have to be reminded that marriage existed LONG BEFORE your fairytale fable.

andre says:

08:46am | 27/06/11

@BL : I guess the marriage long ago during the very process of molecules becoming a man,  according to your definition , was betweex a pair of monkeys, or maybe pair of bacteria ?
How did they ever know that they were married , BL?
Who is a nutter here,mate ?

Carz says:

08:47am | 27/06/11

@Andre, re: what bec said; not to mention organ transplants, antibiotics, and pretty much all health care. After all, if God had meant us to fight illnesses and injury then He would not have allowed them to occur in the first place.

andre says:

08:51am | 27/06/11

bec , you must be reading between the lines. I am not a naturalist. Naturalistic religion states that everything evolved from nothing and there is no god or any inteligence or moral law behind that. My question is : where do naturalist get their ideas about wrong , right, good or bad?

Jane says:

08:55am | 27/06/11

@andre - we live in a secular country with secular laws. And a separation of church and state.

If we were to adhere to arguements around ‘tradition’ to prevent marriage equality, then we’d still be banning interracial marraiges - and noone would rightly argue for that.

andre says:

09:10am | 27/06/11

@Jane : interestingly,  racism as such,  comes from Darwinism, which is a base for secularism and laws youa re so fond of. Darwinism is a base of women infriority as well, so I sense a bit of hypocrisy in those secular laws of equality. Secularists should stick to darwinism all the way while making any laws if they claim to be rationalists.

Lauren says:

09:12am | 27/06/11

But andre…. That’s not what god says. That is what Paul said that god said, in a book that has been edited a lot over the years. That’s hearsay. And bullshit.
I may be alone in this regard, but as a Christian I firmly believe that the big guy is behind gay marriage.

Blazes says:

09:14am | 27/06/11

Mahhrat, there is an excellent secular case put against gay marriage in this paper here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155 (click on one-click download)

The thrust of it is that the current definition, as between a man and a woman, is a far more coherent, logical definition that the alternative, as between two consenting adults.

andre says:

09:42am | 27/06/11

@Laureen : you must be indeed reading a book, edited over and over many times, but that is not the Bible. God-the Creator of heaven ane earth (there are many “gods” that are not ) is certainly not behind gay marriage.
What is a base for your opinion of something being bullshit or not ? You do realise that someone else may have a different opinion. Why are you trying to impose your opinion and religious beliefs on others ?

marley says:

09:51am | 27/06/11

@Andre - racism doesn’t come from Darwinism.  Racism has much older roots than that, and the version that cropped up in the 20th century uses a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution to bolster prejudices which date back to when two tribes competed for land in the Rift Valley.  Anyone who understands the theory of evolution would know that the distinctions between different human “races” are so minor as to be irrelevant to the larger theory.

Mahhrat says:

10:21am | 27/06/11

@Blazes, a good link and I’ve only read a couple of pages, but it is seeking to define “Revisionists” in its own terms, which is not correct.

For a start, marriage in the modern age does no pre-suppose procreation.

Second, an argument I saw already repeating was the argument “why not incestuous couples who don’t want to breed”?  At the end of the day, why not? 

This is where Part I falls over emotionally - sure, it’s repugnant to me, but if you’re brother and sister and you don’t want to breed, so long as you’re both aware and consenting, go nuts, I reckon.  I would be more in the “revisionist” than “conjugal” camp, but that paper seeks to define “revisionists” as being opposed to that arrangement.

I’m probably a bit more liberal - if it doesn’t hurt anyone else and there aren’t health risks to children involved, then who cares?

I agree in the valid health risks of incest, say, and that should be regulated.  But living together in a marriage-style relationship?  Why not?

The problem with the “conjugal” view on marriage is that it’s heavily based on sex.  I know of several happily married couples who have no real sex, or have polygamous sex, partner swap, whatever.  Sexual debauches (and I use that word loosely) are not only one camp and not the other.

andre says:

10:23am | 27/06/11

@Marley:  you ought to read “Descent of Man” , by Darwin.
I wonder why homosexuals are pushing so hard for recognition of their relationships as “marriage”. One can not be christian and homosexual at the same time. Being non christian then, it shoud not matter if they live in government sanctioned “marriage” or not…

Bev says:

10:23am | 27/06/11

andre says:08:51am | 27/06/11

My question is : where do naturalist get their ideas about wrong , right, good or bad?
From same place everybody does. The accumulated knowledge of thinkers down the ages both religious and non religious.  This thinking is across all cultures and the basics are much the same.

andre says:

10:48am | 27/06/11

@Bev :  this accumulated thinking , in case of gay marriage excludes Biblical moral law and actually goes against it…

Blazes says:

11:48am | 27/06/11

@Mahhrat thanks for reading the link. A couple of points in response:

“For a start, marriage in the modern age does no pre-suppose procreation.”

The paper does not argue that marriage presupposes procreation. It is saying that the link between hetreosexual relationships and procreation is part of the reason why the conjugal view of marriage makes sense. Read Part I D of the paper.

On that point, marriage in the modern age doesn’t really presuppose love either, but we all recognise as marriage involving love.  Many marriages don’t really involve love (some involve domestic violence and even murder), but that doesn’t mean we can’t say love is important to marriage. So it is wrong to say that any aspect of our understanding of marriage depends on all marriages adhering to that idea.

“Second, an argument I saw already repeating was the argument “why not incestuous couples who don’t want to breed”?  At the end of the day, why not?” 

I appreciate your honesty. Most gay marriage supporters don’t admit that the logical extension of allowing gay marriage is to allow incestuous marriage, and won’t argue along those lines.

My response to you would be if we allow all those forms of marriage, then the institution of marriage will become completely compromised - there would be several types of relationships recognised under marriage laws, even when the physical nature of those relationships are detrimental to society. The idea of marriage being a institution for the social good would be lost.

Father Figure says:

12:05pm | 27/06/11

@ andre you’re a very hypocritical person when laureen stated that your so called bible was bullshit and by the way it is, you told her that just because she didnt belive in the bible dosent mean its bullshit and that she shouldnt try and press her opinions on others well listen to what you preach douche bag you’re a religious nutbag going on about how god dissaproves im sorry but no one gives a shit what your fictional character dissaproves of. If you need a made up father figure to make yourself feel worthy of somthing and make you belive you have a purpose on this earth than by all means pray silently to him to protect you and save you when our so called judgemeant day comes but dont spread your moronic views with the rest of us. as for this gay marriage if it is such a sin in your so called gods eyes why dosent he strike them down, ill tell you why because he is fake just like your so called religion which is just a cult hiding behind a mystical made up entity. im all for gay marriage if the homos and lesbians wanna marry and have a ceremony good on em stop making such a huge deal out of every thing and start thinkin rationally.

Bev says:

12:20pm | 27/06/11

Blazes says:11:48am | 27/06/11
The idea of marriage being a institution for the social good would be lost.
That seems to be part of the agenda by homosexuals, feminists and the usual suspects.  Homosexuals are trying to claim the high moral ground by setting themselves up as having more stable, more loving relationships and being better at raising children.  I don’t know much about about male relationships but I do know that the level of DV in lesbian is higher than in hetrosexual relationships and that 2 or 3 poster couples proclaiming they are better have crashed spectacularly. Feminists encourage single motherhood and proclaim fathers are not needed. Something not supported by increasing number of studies.

Blazes says:

12:35pm | 27/06/11

@Bev, I disagree - I don’t think the push for gay marriage is really part of a broader scary agenda. It is a push for change based purely on emotion, not on reason, and there would be negative consequences for marriage as a result. Nothing more.

Anne71 says:

12:43pm | 27/06/11

Andre - racism / sexism originated from The Origin of Species? Wow. You really do learn something every day, don’t you?

andre says:

01:39pm | 27/06/11

@Father figure : you shoould not call yourself a father figure. Looks like you are a nit mixed up a bit there.Father is a father , I am a father and I am a man. If you believe , you came from water and dirt , you really do not have much of a base for rational reasonin, don’t you ?
As to the Judgement Day , it will happen wheter you like it or not.

God says that if he started to strike down people for all the sin that are commited , soon all life will cease before Him. Secondly we should be able to chose His ways on the base of knowing him and loving Him not being scared of Him. And thirdly: He allowed and subjected all creation to evil for a certain set time. Sooner evil reaches its peak , sooner Christ will come back, so as a christian I am not concerned much about gay marriages rights and so on.

Bev says:

01:44pm | 27/06/11

Blazes says:12:35pm | 27/06/11

@Bev, I disagree - I don’t think the push for gay marriage is really part of a broader scary agenda. It is a push for change based purely on emotion, not on reason, and there would be negative consequences for marriage as a result. Nothing more.

A change of law based on emotion rather than reason is mostly bad law and yes I do believe there is an agenda.  Assisted reproduction is a goal of lesbian couples and the moment they are married there can be no argument (their the same as hetrosexual couples under the law).  There are moves in the US and elsewhere to rope in the semen donor for child support if the relationship breaks up. At the moment its messy but the title “married” would help that along too. There are others.

andre says:

01:51pm | 27/06/11

@Anne71
If you think Darwin to be father of science , please read “From Darwin to Hitler” by prof Weikart. You can order it from Dymocks.

Mahhrat says:

01:57pm | 27/06/11

@Blazes, I wish I had the time and the passion to give both you and the article the attention they deserve so I can properly frame my arguments, so please excuse anything that appears contradictory.

Saying that, I don’t accept that “marriage” is a necessity for the “social good”.  What worked even 40 years ago simply does not apply today - the world has metaphorically shrunk so far in the last 10 years and will only do so further in future.

The concept of ‘marriage’ needs to change to encompass the new social norms, not seek to limit them.  It was never a religious thing, yet is was suborned by our Judeo-Christian heritage as a control measure.  It was never a male/female thing, it was simply what was encouraged by those religions as the “accepted” way of doing things.

Yes, the paper’s “conjugal” definition of marriage has served (particularly) Western society very well for a long time now, but society has changed.  I envision that within our lifetimes we will have the technology to conduct full marriage-like relationships electronically - flight of fancy, you might say, but if you believe that anything less than online sex is the goal of millions of the world’s geeks, then you’re deluding yourself.

Once you’ve got the tech to realistically simulate acts of intimacy, current technology allows everything else a “conjugal” marriage involves.

At that point, you could marry your brother.  Who cares?

Josh says:

02:30pm | 27/06/11

Well no, not all opposition is based on “Judeo-Christian” moral values (What are these anyway?).  Even the Australian Christian Lobby has based its submission on the notion that the state has a legitimate interest in safeguarding relationships that can naturally issue in children, and not other kinds of relationships.  Other people say that we should keep our traditions intact and provide “civil unions” for same-sex couples.

Just relax a little bit please says:

02:31pm | 27/06/11

Wow Andre, why does believing in your god and reading the bible fill you with so much hatred?  Love thy neighbour (... but only if they have exactly the same views as you?).

josh says:

02:38pm | 27/06/11

Andre said “One can not be christian and homosexual at the same time.”

Really?  Get yourself to a liberal church!  I know numerous gay Christians, not to mention about half the clergy.  Fundamentalism has no future.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

04:58pm | 27/06/11

@ Blazes “Most gay marriage supporters don’t admit that the logical extension of allowing gay marriage is to allow incestuous marriage, and won’t argue along those lines.”

Nonsense. Incestuous relationships lead to genetic abnormalities that are incompatible with life. Whilst homosexual relationships do not produce life, they also don’t inflict lethal genetic problems onto innocent individuals.

Anne71 says:

05:05pm | 27/06/11

Andre, you strange little man, where exactly did I say that I think Darwin is the “father of science”?  I was just questioning your assertion that racism / sexism was brought about by his works. Funny, considering that racism and sexism were well and truly entrenched in Western society before Darwin was even born.

andre says:

05:12pm | 27/06/11

@ Josh
Apostle Paul says :
Rom 9:6 Not, however, that God’s Word has failed. For not all those of Israel are Israel,

The same happens in case of Christians, the new Israel : not all those from Christianity are Christians.
I am free Christian do not belong to any official church. I left the” Babylon”.

andre says:

05:43pm | 27/06/11

@Just relax a little bit please

Yiou sir/madam obviously have not read all the posts of the “reasonable” people here. According to some of those I am the biggest nutter ..

Truth offends you know ...

mel says:

08:18pm | 27/06/11

Andre, do you really think Richard Weikart is a respectable source? An evangelical christian belonging to the Discovery Institute (which he seems to be rather reticent to reveal in his book) who produced a work that, according to one review, is “dismaying to see such opinions being passed off as results of scholarly research” <http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=9837>, or another that calls it “a mono-causal analysis which quite distorts the historical picture” <http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Ryerson Lecture—Moral Judgment in History.pdf>.

Top of the class, Andre!

andre says:

07:59am | 28/06/11

@mel :  you think Darwin is a respectable source ? His only education was theology.
prof Weikart is teaching at one University in US. Enough for me. He meticulously collected document and historical facts showing how Darwinism slowly creeped into German society , so that when Hitler appeared everybody was convinced they were better evolved than the rest of the world. Interestingly enough , when Darwin first came up with the theory ,scientists stood against him but churchians accepted it with no objections.

prof Weikart homepage for your info.

http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/

Perkin Warbeck says:

03:22pm | 28/06/11

andre and Bev are two of the most virulent debaters we have here, stoic yes. Enlightened though? Neither has advanced one whit beyond their close minded beliefs, even though they have been asked to consider something beyond that belief repeatedly by others in this forum.

andre seems to hang a lot on Darwin and right wing fundamentalist writers and Bev is anti feminism, anti humanist, anti secularism, anti environmentalism and even drags out the “I don’t mind gays but why do they have to be gay around me” scenario.

I can accept that Bev wants to remain conservative and close minded about marriage equality. That’s fine for Bev. But Bev, 63% of Australians don’t agree with you. So, please don’t foist your minority, simple minded opinion on everyone else and MAKE them follow what you believe. Those wanting marriage equality know that there will be a small minority vehemently opposed - we are not asking you to give up that belief - hold it all you like. Just accept that it is not the belief of the vast majority of others and get out of the way. Remember what that champion of the Christian faith St Paul (aka Saul/Paul of Tarsus) was once told? “Why are you kicking against the pricks? It hurts!”

Same can be said to andre. I can accept that andre has issues with Darwin and draws some wild conclusions that don’t make any sense. I can accept that he will believe the studies done by questionable people with highly unscientific studies and pass them off as acceptable. That’s his right. However, it is also my right to think of him as not the full quid either. And to politely say so… andre, mate, you’re a nutter, with all due respect…

For both andre and Bev: when full marriage equality happens in Australia, the following happens. All consenting, non-blood related (outside of the generally agreed prohibited degrees) adult people in Australia will have the choice to marry the partner of their choosing. That is all. It will not affect your marriage, should you have one, your parent’s marriage (likewise), Tony Abbott’s marriage or Julia Gillard’s choice of non-marriage. It will not change the definition of marriage. It will still be the joining of two people who wish to publicly display their connection to each other and then access the range of Government legislated offerings that are only available to people who are married. It will protect them and their families. It will not cause society to fall, children to be confused (anymore than they always have been) and the sky will not turn purple and send bolts of red lightning into every home.

Oh and andre…. one can be a Christian and homosexual…. I am… and Paul of Tarsus (who wrote all those lovely letters) was one too…so, please - deal with it.

andre says:

03:53pm | 28/06/11

@Perkin Warbeck : anybody who holds on to the Bible appears to be a nutter for you amigo. I do not think tere is a debate here , the issue is gays want to have their sinfull relationships sanctified by naming it marriage. Once more time : their relationsip is not marriage in Biblical sense and never will be, deal with it. Oh! And read book of Revelation where it says wh will end up in the lake of fire : homosexuals are there as are occultists, and all liars , thieves and so on. You can not be any of those and be a Christian at the same time. Deal with it once more…

nossy says:

09:06am | 27/06/11

@Gregg - that pesky media Gregg - getting in Tones way isnt it !  hahahahah
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/can-tony-abbott-find-a-way-out-of-his-policyfree-zone-20110624-1gjlx.html

melle says:

08:56am | 27/06/11

Why the word?  Many don’t feel respectable without it?  Once it was “proud to be”. 
Who knows -  a mystery to me

Matt says:

10:30am | 27/06/11

The question isn’t why the word… It’s why not the word?

fairsfair says:

12:48pm | 27/06/11

Scott, your opinion is the same as my gay friends. They don’t want to get married. Yes they one day want to have a union with a person the love, but they reject the work marriage. Admittedly, most of my gay friends are male (and I haven’t discussed this with my one lesbian friend), so I wonder if this massive push is moreso coming from the lesbians?

Bev says:

01:47pm | 27/06/11

fairsfair says:12:48pm | 27/06/11

so I wonder if this massive push is moreso coming from the lesbians?

I believe so.

fairsfair says:

02:33pm | 27/06/11

Typical women I suppose. Expecting the whole world to change around them as to ensure they still get to have everything they want in life.

mike j says:

03:37pm | 27/06/11

That sounds like most of the women I know. And a bit like Matt.

Hey Matt, I answered you question on the other blog. The one you’re now suspiciously absent from. It’s funny how not having an argument makes people evacuate faster than Elvis after a bad breakfast burrito.

26 June 2011 - Urban Word of the Day: engayed

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=engayed

How come homos can have their own word but we can’t?

Now watch me QQ all the way to the wahbulance.

Outraged says:

03:56pm | 27/06/11

Amen Scott.  I am gay a gay guy who would never get married. Neither do any of my gay friends (I have spoken to fifty gay men who never want to get married either)

It is a vocal minority of loud-mouth, self-appointed gay activists pushing this marriage thing…mainly lesbians.

Gay or straight, women still ALWAYS want to be a “princess” for a day….whereas men (gay or straight) run for the hills at the mention of marriage! LOL

Scott-a-diddly says:

04:01pm | 27/06/11

fairsfair, I’d say any gay agenda is mostly lesbians. A few hysterical gay men, and lesbians in the engine room keeping the status quo challenged.

I probably sound like I suffer a lot of autohomophobia; I don’t. I just don’t see why MARRIAGE as opposed to ANOTHER WORD WITH THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS is so damn important. That, and lesbians a) are usually pretty angry about something and b) get shit done.

mjp says:

04:38pm | 27/06/11

In relation to the word “Marriage”, the Commonwealth has the power, pursuant to section 51 (xxi)  “to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to Marriage”. The Commonwealth does not have the power to make laws in relation “Civil Unions, so the States make laws in relation to other relationships (ie defacto relationship act). Therefore, any legally recognised relationship as legislated by the Commonwealth would need to be under this power therefore using the word “Marriage”

Perkin Warbeck says:

03:51pm | 28/06/11

Hello Scott-a-diddly: It’s an hysterical gay man here. Thanks for the pejorative term, appreciate that. In the same way you might appreciate me calling you a boof-head poofter for your comments here as well.

Along with yourself, fairsfair and outraged, I see good old misogyny is alive and well. Could I suggest you pull yourself out from the bar you spend your time in doing your “survey” and look at the broader group of people campaigning for marriage equality.

I am not in a relationship, so the passing of a marriage equality amendment to the 2004 Marriage Act means little to my current circumstances. Yet, I am as virulent a campaigner for this to be changed as anyone - male or female - who is in a relationship and wishes to be married. If that makes me hysterical in your eyes Scott-a-diddly, then I apologize for upsetting your comfortable existence.

Many heterosexual couples do not wish to get married - we seem to have one as the head of our government. Don’t see too many people out there asking for marriage to be abolished because Julia and Tim don’t want to get married.

The word “marriage” has not be “rooted in religion” Scott-a-diddly. Religion (meaning Christianity as expressed by the Roman Catholic Church) would like you to THINK that is has been, but it’s the other way around. Once the Christians got bolder under the Roman Empire, they appropriated the former State sanctioned ceremony and created it as a religious ceremony, basing it on what they saw in the Old and New Testaments. Further though, marriage as “one man to one woman” is not the only form that has been practiced. For all our ardent fundamentalist Christians… Kings David and Solomon were married more times and at the same time than Elizabeth Taylor trebled. To claim that this version of marriage that we have is the only one we’ve had since the advent of human existence is incorrect. As it is if we examined the proscriptions against marriage between classes and religions and until very recently in several parts of the world between races. Once these barriers were removed, surely the “definition” of marriage must have changed? It must have affected all those white, middle class, church going Catholics and Anglicans and Methodists and Lutherans men and women, whose marriages must now be entirely different. Or not.

I doubt that anyone would like to be “civil unioned”. I doubt anyone would like to feel deliberately discriminated against by being told “Yes, you can have that. But, no, you can’t have that - because we say so.” For a moment, place yourself in that position and tell me whether you feel even the slightest bit demeaned. By offering full marriage equality, the stigma of being told that your sexuality is less than another’s, that your love is less than another’s, that your value as a person is less than another’s because you can’t be considered on the same level as them; will be removed.

We need to be accepting not excluding. We need to be open not close minded. We need to accept that others are different from us and provided they respect us and our behaviours (and provided that none of these behaviours is personal or social injurious) then all should live in a society where not just “tolerance” exists but affirmation rules.

Just finally, Scott-a-diddly, your understanding of statistics must be at variance from mine. It seems to me that you are saying unless nearly 90% of an opinion is held, then nothing can be done. If that is the case, please let Mr Abbott know that come the next Federal Election, should he be fortunate enough to lead the Opposition that unless he scores a vote of over 85% he’s not really got a majority and isn’t really elected to do or change anything. You can possibly see why my fingers are typing “boof head”....

Scott-a-diddly says:

12:14pm | 29/06/11

Perkin, based on your opening sentence alone, I knew I was in for a treat, and you really delivered.

I’m not a misogynist. Never have, never will be. I hate singular women, but their gender is pure coincidence. Just because I said “angry lesbians” doesn’t mean I’d kick one in the box just because she was a woman. Pick your words carefully, libelous comments like misogyny and homophobia are thrown around an awful lot these days.

I couldn’t give a crap about the marriage act as it stands, whether I’m in a one night or one life relationship. If it passes, great, I’ll have a celebratory cigarette. If not, I’ll move on! I’m really easy-going like that. When they make it illegal, that’s when I’ll start my marching. Hysterical? I don’t GENUINELY think those campaigning are hysterical. It’s impossible to decipher tone in a single written sentence, so I’ll let it pass, but you seem very easily offended!

My main understanding of marriage simply comes from what I learned in school and my family’s, who have been together thirty years. I don’t care enough to research back into history to try and justify why I should marry my partner. I care about someone and that will show in how I treat them and interact with them, not by some silly legal ceremony and rings and paper. As many heterosexual couples do!

You doubt that ANYONE would like to be “civil unioned”? It’s a mouthful, to be sure, but if it brought the same legal rights, would that not be the same as marriage? Who are you to make that call, to speak on behalf of “anyone”? As I said: call it whatever you want, ultimately it’s still the same thing as gay marriage, people all over Australia will refer to it as such. It’s simply called a different name. Nobody will go around policing the use of the word marriage.

Demeaned? Feeling demeaned is hearing of people who are ambivalent about gay issues being turned away by the constant pushing and pushing of the gay rights movement, when there is only one major issue left to face. That demeans me. That makes me feel less of a person, because now I’m tarred with the same brush, just because I’m gay. I can shout until I’m blue in the fact but I will still be a pushy gay demanding rights that god knows how many ACTUALLY genuinely want. YES, THERE ARE A LOT THAT DO. But there are also those that don’t [apathy like me, a distrust of the institution, they just prefer sex].

Your final paragraph really baffles me. I thought it was a simple comparison, ~60% is a small majority, rather like our poorly operated government, which barely has any power or efficiency. For something as controversial as gay marriage to be considered to pass, I am saying it would need to be in the upper 80s to have hope of doing so.

Feel free to call me a boof-head poofter because I happen to have some conservative ideals. I don’t feel I need to marry my lover, I don’t feel the need to wear it on my sleeve and I don’t feel the need to bombard everyone with my own demands.

I especially like that you chose poofter - like hysterical, it ties in with my comments! That’s really cool, I like that. Makes you look even more switched on and “with it”. Alternately, it actually makes you seem petulant that I dared use the word poofter outside a nightclub, and in reference to other homosexuals.

Let me quote:
“We need to be accepting not excluding. We need to be open not close minded.”
This is what the gay marriage lobby needs to understand. You’re not the only goddamn cause out there pushing for change, but you’re the cause with the most sealed minds. You won’t negotiate. You won’t listen. You simply march with earplugs in and your homophobia label at the ready. This is why the gay marriage lobby is doomed to fail.

Dawn says:

11:17pm | 30/06/11

Some sectors of the lesbian community oppose lesbian marriage on political grounds. There’s actually a lesbian manifesto against it. Personally, I’d rather chew off my own arm than get married, but I do think that it’s the principle of the matter as far as equality and therefore I support it. I also don’t get why it’s a bad thing if lesbian women are behind such an important political movement. It wouldn’t surprise me and is something to be admired, not denigrated. Don’t hate.

TChong says:

08:27am | 27/06/11

Big gay ego ?  Big Gay Al has so much to answer for, doesnt he?

Davo says:

08:31am | 27/06/11

Thomas, then why are you wasting your time commenting on this issue if its not an important issue and there are more important things to worry about? Just the fact that you are so strenuously against gay marriage shows that in fact you do care about the issue. And seriously, how is a loving relationship between two people of the same species the same as bestiality?

Cloud Strife says:

08:44am | 27/06/11

“A marriage can only occur between a male and a female”.

At the moment, that is legally true. However, laws can be changed! Remember, votes and owning land used to be only for white men.

Thomas Anderson says:

08:47am | 27/06/11

Because I spent all of 5 minutes on reading and commenting, to take a break from work. Hardly a waste of time

Thomas Anderson says:

09:20am | 27/06/11

@ Wannabe Zack

Not only legally true, but also true by definition of the word marriage. Some dictionaries are starting to modify the definition to include same sex marriages, which is where the parallel to bestiality comes in. If we start modifying definitions, where do we stop?

Putting aside the illegality of bestiality, what if a goat lover wants to be married to his goat? Should we include another sub-definition to incorporate animals? What if a man wants to marry his chair? No laws against sex with furniture as far as I am aware. It is unnatural you say? Well, is furniture sex more unnatural to you than homosexual sex is to a homophobe? If it is, that makes you a furniphobe or something. Furniphobe! In this day and age!?

You know, I bet a lot of straight men would rather have sex with a chair than another man. Discuss.

bec says:

09:35am | 27/06/11

Thomas, are chairs and goats able to enter into legally binding contracts? Are chairs and goats able to give consent as it is understood in law? Do chairs and goats necessarily want rights and responsibilities with regards to end of life decisions, inheritance, tax and property ownership?

Your arguments are dumb, and you know it. I don’t want you to feel bad about it though. I once thought like you did - when I was fifteen and before I had the benefit of life experience and an education.

Bev says:

10:37am | 27/06/11

Cloud Strife says:08:44am | 27/06/11

“A marriage can only occur between a male and a female”.

At the moment, that is legally true. However, laws can be changed! Remember, votes and owning land used to be only for white men.

Yes the can but that does not mean every change is good. There has been plenty of stupid law changes with unintended/unantisipated consequences.  Oh and why aren’t you railing againt the 1867 law change in England which forbade women and children working in coalmines.  After all feminists claim women are equal and that law change descriminated against womens work choices.

RyaN says:

10:41am | 27/06/11

@Davo: “And seriously, how is a loving relationship between two people of the same species the same as bestiality? “
- Well same sex relationships were once illegal, as is bestiality
- As for the loving relationship, are you sure those deviants that engage in bestiality believe they are in a loving relationship?
- Homosexuality was just as abhorrent as bestiality to the general public in the past.
Playing devils advocate, is it not hypocritical of anyone who stands for the rights of same sex relationships casting down the rights of those who believe in bestial relationships?

RyaN says:

10:44am | 27/06/11

@bec: that is true, I guess first Chairs and Goats will have to address this blatant discrimination of their rights in the eyes of the law.

Zaf says:

10:59am | 27/06/11

It’s obviously a slippery slope.  If they allow gay marriage will legal miscegenation be next?  That’s what I want to know.  Where do these people stand on miscegenation?

Cloud Strife says:

11:00am | 27/06/11

@Bev

*facepalm*

Nice derail, there.

If people were still working in coalmines to the same degree they were in England in 1867, I would argue that women should and can work in coalmines. I’m pretty sure women can work in coalmines nowadays if they want to and get the job.

Children, not so much. If they’re over 15 and 3/4, though, then they can go work in coalmines till the cows come home.

Thomas Anderson says:

11:29am | 27/06/11

@  bec

Thank you Ryan. Once, women and Aboriginals could not enter into contracts either. In this ever changing world, where definitions change every day, the time is nigh to give Goats and Chairs their well deserved rights.

Matt says:

11:42am | 27/06/11

Ryan, check your facts.. It was sodomy that was illegal, not being homosexual.  That law went for heterosexuals as well, only not enforced as much. Why is it when this argument arises so many people all of a sudden want to bang their pets?  It’s really weird… We’re talking about the rights of consenting people, not why you can’t have sex with your dog..  Can you not tell the difference between a person and an animal?  Do you think humans and animals are equal?

And no, it’s not hypocritical at all - I don’t believe in equal rights for man/animal, woman/animal relationships at all - in fact it’s ridiculous.

RyaN says:

12:04pm | 27/06/11

@Matt: clearly there were a lot of closed minded people in the past who didn’t want to treat women as equals either, I guess you would have been one of them. “I don’t believe in equal rights for man/animal, woman/animal relationships at all” so no equal rights only equal rights for YOUR deviancy.

Thomas Anderson says:

12:12pm | 27/06/11

@ Matt

And a lot of people think that man/man and woman/woman marriages are ridiculous as well. Think about how you feel about a human/chair marriage. Now you know how anti-gay-marriage people feel about gay marriage.

RyaN says:

12:12pm | 27/06/11

@Matt: “It was sodomy that was illegal, not being homosexual. ” ok Matt, so I checked my facts and I believe it was “homosexual acts” that were classified illegal http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/2/E/{F2ED9BD3-0314-4EAA-AD03-410635E620DE}ti29.pdf

I guess using the same argument then, bestiality is classified as an act is it not?

Lets play devils advocate on the technicality of consent, how about two consenting adults who happen to be related, I guess they should have their rights upheld also?

Anne71 says:

12:47pm | 27/06/11

Equal Rights for Chairs and Goats!

Thomas Anderson says:

01:16pm | 27/06/11

Yes, thank you to whoever suggested incest in the other article discussion. Chairs and goats may not be human, but your sister is.

Think of those poor sibling couples, where a brother and sister are in a loving relationship. They are both of age, they can both consent, legally or otherwise, they can both enter contracts.

With divorce rates so high, and all that domestic abuse that heterosexual couples experience, how can you say that a loving, caring relationship between siblings is more wrong than that between unrelated people? Time to legalise incestuous marriages?

D says:

02:02pm | 27/06/11

Tell you what. When your chair or your goat can stand up and recite marriage vows, and sign a marriage licence - in other words, when your chair or goat can express their free CONSENT to be married, then come back to us.

Consent is just as much of a legal requirement to being married as being a man and a woman (as the current definition stands). If one party to a marriage does not or legally cannot give full and informed consent then that marriage is null and void.

It is not hypocritical to say that only those who agree to be married, and who understand the nature of the marriage contract they are entering into, should be married. As chairs and goats cannot consent to marriage, and cannot demonstrate their understanding of marriage, then it is not hypocritical to say that they shouldn’t be married.

As for siblings, there generally are biological reasons why society deems them unable to marry each other - the chances of passing on biological deformities to children is higher, for example. But hey, if those in favour of marriage between adult consenting siblings decided to get together, form a lobby group and present an argument, then it might become an issue. Until then, it’s not up to homosexuals to lobby for or against every other type of relationship.

Just because a person supports using the term “marriage” for one type of relationship doesn’t mean that they have to support extending marriage to another. Otherwise, your support of heterosexual marriage means you would have to support gay marriage as well.

Each should be considered on their own merits and arguments; one group shouldn’t have to fight for all groups in order to have their own fight considered - and the exclusion of one group from the definition of marriage shouldn’t mean that all other groups must necessarily be excluded.

Thomas Anderson says:

02:21pm | 27/06/11

Well said, D.

The difference between gay marriage and incestuous marriage is that no one is campaigning for incestuous marriage, and the media has not conditioned the masses for years to think that incest is acceptable.

The only thing I would like to address is the biological reason incest is not accepted. Seeing how gay people cannot have kids at all, normal, deformed, gay, straight or otherwise, I’d say there’s a pretty good biological argument against gay marriage.

Sylvie says:

02:36pm | 27/06/11

@Thomas Anderson
Good sense
Good laugh -  furniture & goats

Perkin Warbeck says:

04:41pm | 28/06/11

Dear Thomas Anderson:
You really did use up your 5 minutes of boredom from work, didn’t you? Love to know where you learned debating skills, the whole chairs and goats thing was a hoot.

Except that it only masked your real beliefs and intention, which is a lot more sinister. “Seeing how gay people cannot have kids at all, normal, deformed, gay, straight or otherwise, I’d say there’s a pretty good biological argument against gay marriage.” Apart from the ludicrousness of that statement (but then, you did bring chairs and goats into this) as it stands, try comparing it with infertile couples or couples past the age of child bearing. Would that be a “pretty good biological argument” against those people getting married?

Going back to your first statement that began with “...marriage can only occur between a male and a female. Nothing to be discussed here.” and then ended with “But it’s all about the ego…” - yes, it is Thomas. You big inflated heterosexual ego. You start by saying there will be no discussion, your views are right and anything else is wrong or is totally farcical which you amplify with your pathetic chair and goat analogy. Then you’ve gone on and one and on adding more and more ridiculous comments as you go and then finally finishing with you brilliant eugenics philosophy. If you are ever going to argue cogently, then do it cogently and with some respect.
Is your 5 minutes of boredom from your work up?

Bev says:

10:16am | 27/06/11

Phil says:08:34am | 27/06/11

“Polling shows 75 per cent of Australians believe it is inevitable”

That doesn’t mean that 75% of Australians are accepting of it, it just means that if its shoved down our throats enough it will eventually get enough pressure and votes to be passed.
Then the gay community will move on to their next demand.
Exactly
Sex between men was against the law.  There was agitation and the law was changed. The vast majority agreed.
Homosexual couples were not treated as couples by government agencies. There was agitation and the law was changed. The vast majority agreed.
There was still some discrimination involving centerlink and inheritance.
There was agitation and the law was changed. The vast majority agreed.
Homosexuals having sweep away discrimination and to all intents and purposes having the same rights as hetrosexual couples (married or defacto) and are now demanding to be able to marry.  Many don’t agree some for religious reasons, some for reproductive reason and some think that children in these relationships (how that comes about is another matter) can never have what most people consider normal upbringing as a mother and father are not involved.

I used to be ambivalent about homosexual marriage, no more!  Having read here at the Punch and elsewere comments for and against and looked at studies both neutral balanced studies and other “studies” from the pro camp which seem to bend the results to suit the agenda I am firmly in the no camp. Why?  First feminists and homosexuals have mounted a concerted campaign to portray normal marriage as difunctional, slavery for women and a hot bed of DV. Truth be known lesbian relationship have a higher level of DV than hetrosexual relationships.  As for difunction no different. We have had in the past at least a couple of lesbian relationships put up as poster examples of how good, loving these relationships are and how good they are for children. Both ended up separating with at least as much nastiness as some of the worst examples of hetrosexual divorce. The resent article in the Punch for the latest poster couple shows that those children are not growing up normaly.  Further homosexuals are attempting to claim the moral high ground in that they are more loving and can do a better job of raising children than can mum or dad, BS.
If they get what they want do you really think they will be satisfied?
Like the green and feminists it will become the new baseline for further claims.

B. Wildered says:

02:27pm | 27/06/11

Hey Mickey…..spot on champ, and there are plenty of seats for the res of em.  Comment of the day I suggest.

Jake says:

03:20pm | 28/06/11

Calling the Galaxy poll a push-poll is unreasonable. The first question asks for a Likert scale response and it is common practice in these instances to provide background information in the question.

The essential media poll (a simple yes/no poll) still shows 49% of Australians are in favour of gay marriage, significantly more than those opposed at 40%. The numbers aren’t as spectacular as the 62% identified in the Galaxy Poll, but they still speak for themselves.

“This is not not the slightest bit homophobic or religious”

The main author is the directory of the Director of Bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville - A catholic institution which spends most of it’s time advocating against anything which the church doesn’t find acceptable like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and of course, same sex marriage. It’s a bit rich to suggest that the paper isn’t the slightest bit religious when it’s the product of an outspoken religious think-tank.

As for the essay itself, it unsurprisingly spends the first half creating a rigid definition for marriage based on procreation and nebulous terms like “one-flesh union” and the rest explaining why homosexual couples don’t qualify. However there is nothing relevant to the necessary inclusion or exclusion of same-sex couples cited in the paper outside of the authors’ opinions.

It’s dressed up with all kinds of suggestions of objective reasons why the state must promote heterosexual marriage as though there would be some earth-shattering social impact if gay couples used the same term to describe their relationship as straight ones - although it fails to explain exactly what that terrible outcome would be.

Nobody is arguing that homosexual couples do not meet the traditional model of a marriage. Nobody is arguing that the current legal definition of marriage in Australia does not stipulate that it must be between a man and a woman.

The argument is that, aside from the definition which was added to the marriage bill in the 2004 amendment, there is no reason to exclude homosexual couples from holding the status of being legally married. Unless there is a reason to exclude same sex couples from the definition, it should be changed to not exclude them.

RyaN says:

01:08pm | 27/06/11

@Bob: try twice in a day like today.

LeonT says:

11:34am | 27/06/11

Immigration for a start. It’s a lot easier to prove you’re in a relationship if you have some paper that says so.

Phil says:

10:42am | 27/06/11

What does “this day and age” have to do with it?
Just because time goes by doesnt mean we should let things slide and give in to the wants of minorities!

The gay community has the same rights as the hetro community.
They can marry the same people we can which is defined in the Marriage Act, what you are saying is they want it changed to SUIT THEM.

Joeyjpejoejnr says:

11:00am | 27/06/11

Sam… If the only prerequisite to marriage is love, then does that mean that a brother and sister should be able to Marry is they love each other and wish to? How about a Man and two Woman?
And while we are at it… how should we define love?

Sam says:

12:07pm | 27/06/11

Joeyjpejoejnr : You missed the point I was making, there are many people who can be “MARRIED” and can have children and they really shouldnt be allowed, but do we see people arguing against these couples? No, But for some reason if the couple are both men or are both women then they should immediately be banned from being allowed to use the word “MARRIED”.

Your reference to Brothers and sisters makes no sense, we know that the union or relatives results in genetic dangers so of course this is not allowed, also your reference to a man and two women again is pointless as we are all talking about the marriage of a “COUPLE” .

Sam says:

12:18pm | 27/06/11

Phil: Goodness me Phil I am so glad you are not running the country ! When you say ‘...just because time goes by doesnt mean we should let things slide and give in to the wants of minorities….’  Well Im dumbfoundered !

According to your logic nothing should change, maybe you would prefer the world if we took away the vote from women, or if we brought back slavery, maybe we go even further back and kill those who question religion ??

When you say ‘...give in to the wants of minorities…’ do you mean that any minority should have no rights? Should have no say? We are not talking about “GIVING IN” to anything, we are not talking about giving gay couples something that you cannot have, we are talking about giving them something that all others receive, something I am allowed, something you are allowed, but something they are not allowed.

If the gay community has the same rights as the rest of us then please explain to me why we are talking about something here? Why is there discussion about this ?  The Marriage Act was changed by the Conservatives to ensure Gay couples couldnt Marry, so you are dead wrong when you say they have the same rights.

Sam says:

12:19pm | 27/06/11

Phil: Goodness me Phil I am so glad you are not running the country ! When you say ‘...just because time goes by doesnt mean we should let things slide and give in to the wants of minorities….’  Well Im dumbfoundered !

According to your logic nothing should change, maybe you would prefer the world if we took away the vote from women, or if we brought back slavery, maybe we go even further back and kill those who question religion ??

When you say ‘...give in to the wants of minorities…’ do you mean that any minority should have no rights? Should have no say? We are not talking about “GIVING IN” to anything, we are not talking about giving gay couples something that you cannot have, we are talking about giving them something that all others receive, something I am allowed, something you are allowed, but something they are not allowed.

If the gay community has the same rights as the rest of us then please explain to me why we are talking about something here? Why is there discussion about this ?  The Marriage Act was changed by the Conservatives to ensure Gay couples couldnt Marry, so you are dead wrong when you say they have the same rights.

Chris_D says:

05:33pm | 27/06/11

Interestingly, almost your whole argument revolves around other couples getting married and having children, quite the opposite of what technically would happen in a gay marriage.  But using your own argument, you don’t feel these marriages should be allowed, based on the fact you don’t like the pairing, and suggest there should be a law to stop this.  Personally, I agree that there are many, MANY people who should not be allowed to breed for many, MANY reasons, but imagine trying to sell that argument. 

Anyway, the lesbian you quote seems to only be worried about the wording given to the union, so is that a good enough reason to change the law?  What if she preferred the term “Universally co-exiting”, should we pass a law to satisfy that yearning?

But the final sentence is the one trotted out the most by those who have no other argument; that gay people should have the same rights as the rest of us, which in fact, they already do.  What they want is more rights, a new set of rights that suits them and their lifestyle.  This is what people like yourself seem unable to grasp.  And apparently the rest of us should support this.

LeonT says:

11:38am | 27/06/11

I thought the metre was a little off, but I liked the imagery it evoked.

I’ll give this one a B+

Harquebus says:

12:20pm | 27/06/11

I prefer to use the word “crap” but, that always get censored.

tony of poorakistan says:

01:05pm | 27/06/11

I agree. There is no reason to embed it. For those of us who don’t use it, it makes the page load time much longer. Try using a simple image with a link to youtube if you absolutely must use it.

RyaN says:

01:14pm | 27/06/11

@Harquebus: its flash yes, its you tube!
I guess you need to stop buying that crApple stuff that doesn’t support 10 year old technology.

Mark says:

09:15am | 28/06/11

You are not requesting equal rights but unequal rights. I am well aware that homosexual couples already gain most of the legal benefits of hetro couples. The economic benefits are clear to any body with two brain cells, two incomes but one home, duh. I am not bitter I am simply me & I am happy to be me.

Matt says:

02:36pm | 28/06/11

Oh, so two incomes and one home is ‘large economical advantage’ is it?  What about married couples that decide not to have children?  What about retirees?  What about boyfriend and girlfriend living together? So it’s ok for these people to get ‘large economical advantage’ but not homosexuals… Pffftt - what a joke your comment is Mark.

brissie says:

02:43pm | 27/06/11

At last some one talking sense…

Leah says:

10:17am | 28/06/11

This is idealistic. As soon as homosexual marriage is legalised, you will see court cases popping up of people suing churches for refusing to marry them. “But I WANT to get married in that gorgeous cathedral! They won’t let me just because I’m homosexual! That’s discrimination!”

Can I also point out that it’s only Catholic churches that define marriage as a sacrament. Protestant churches don’t.

Matt says:

08:12pm | 28/06/11

Leah, surely you’re not stupid enough to think a church is the only place to marry? Or that same sex couples might NOT want to marry in a church. And does it surprise you that there are actually progressive churches and christians that accept the bible can be interpreted in different ways and accept homosexuals? And that this is not a viable case for a law suit?  Surely you’re not so ignorant..

Lloyd says:

12:55pm | 27/06/11

Is that similar to the way you have bastardised the English language with the misspelling of your name? It’s also unfair to the international viewers of the Punch to see the word Aussie in front of said trashy nickname, as that implies all Aussies are inbred rednecks like yourself. I’d imagine you’re the sort of bloke who masturbates to half naked women in the pamphlets you get in the mail because you’ve spent all your money on XXXX and “I Wank and I vote” stickers that your deadshit friends think is funny.Am I right?

Brendan says:

01:54pm | 27/06/11

Steady on a bit Lloyd, you’re picking on a mentally damaged person.

reality check says:

05:19pm | 27/06/11

@come out of the closet juliar “Frankly I don’t see why anyone straight or gay would want to get “married”. Its a out-of-date archaic ritual.”

I have to agree with you. I look around at all the marrieds I know - several are unhappy and whine frequently about their spouse and some are in abusive relationships. Several have domineering spouses - male and female - who nag at them and force them into doing everything the dominant person enjoys doing, whilst the dominant one doesn’t give up some preferred activity of their own to spend time doing what the other person enjoys. One “committed Christian couple” I know wouldn’t dream of separating. Instead they have become bitter and go out of their way to be nasty to each other at every opportunity. If that is what marriage does to people i sure as hell don’t want to be married.

Cloud Strife says:

11:37am | 27/06/11

I don’t know what is more disgusting - your views or the fact that you are proud of them.

Lloyd says:

12:26pm | 27/06/11

You just have no idea do you, you nasty little man. I’d be surprised if you had a wife, but I hope to God you don’t have children. Not all of us are in the “lobby” you know, some are just “ordinary” citizens who want to be treated the same as everyone else. As I have said before, if we pay the same taxes, then we should get the same rights. As for homosexual sex being unnatural, what are you basing that on? Because you weren’t born homosexual it is unnatural? Think outside your little grimy box, Graham. The sex I have is natural to me (and legal) but unlike you, I’m mature enough not to class the sex you have as unnatural, just because it is different to the sex I have. People like you are the reason we have Pride: to remind ourselves what we’re up against. Well done, New York.

graham says:

01:17pm | 27/06/11

Lloyd, I do have children, and of course that means I have a wife. Strange thing for you or one of your ‘kind’ to say, that you hope I don’t have kids. I mean, I wouldn’t say such a terrible thing to you. And why would I?
I didn’t write of my/your sex being unnatural. I merely wrote that your sex habits are unnatural. Mine aren’t. Ask my children. My acts had a ‘natural’ result. Your suggestion that you were born with a genetic “difference” doesn’t ring with me. That’s like saying a child molester is acting “naturally” because of some genetic disorder. Are you suggesting that paedephilia should be made acceptable? You can’t have it both ways, (or maybe you can), either you are ALL born that way or only your select few. I’m not a ‘little man’, nor would I deny you, or anyone, their “rights”. But some people, like that child molester I mentioned ealier don’t have a “right” to practice their evil just because they pay taxes. You, and your obsession with “grimy little boxes” should really be a little quieter in your demand that others “must” respect your wierdness. I don’t, and I won’t.
And cloud-strife, I don’t know which is worse. You deciding that I’m not entitled to a view, or your decision that I should not have the right to be proud of it. Keep your pathetic deviancy to your own. Don’t inflict us with it “being right”. It ain’t!

BL says:

01:45pm | 27/06/11

@Graham

And what would happen if one of your children came to you and told them they were gay, Graham? Would you be telling them how unnatural and disgusting they are? Would you tell them they are an immoral unnatural creature?

Sorry to break it to you Graham, but the only people breeding these so-called “unnatural” people are heterosexuals. So perhaps you should take a look at your own genetic make-up before referring to people as “unnatural”, especially when countless scientific studies show that homosexuality is prevalent in all lifeforms and actually serves as a form of a population control. Or would you rather an overpopulated planet that is already scarce in resources?

Lena says:

01:49pm | 27/06/11

What is normal? I sure hope that your homophobic views do not get passed on to another generation where it is the norm to discriminate against what you do not like. What if your child was Homosexual? Would you shun them as willing and quickly as you are to others out there now? To be proud of such a view disgusts me.

Lloyd says:

01:56pm | 27/06/11

What I meant with the kids remark is that it is unfortunate someone with such uneducated and reprehensible views should be passed on to the younger generation. Sort of like the kids that go and picket for the Westboro Baptist Church. “All of that means nothing to me except that they know that the real names of these acts of immorality are unacceptable to normal people….proud to be critical of unnatural sexual deviations.” - kind of weird, you’d state in your new post “I wouldn’t say something that terrible to you”. How would you know our sex habits are unnatural? Have you tried them? Again, just because you don’t practice them, doesn’t mean they are unnatural. To me unnatural sex is sex with children or animals. And of course, rape. Which brings me to my next point. Do uneducated bigots have a book of cliches for stupid homophobic comments? The “are-you-suggesting-we-make-paedophila-legal” line is as cringe worthy and ridiculous as what my sisters Muslim friend said (“Eating bacon is the reason you’re gay”) or “you just haven’t met the right woman yet.” I would say the majority of gay people would say we are born this way. Trust me, you wouldn’t choose it with all the crap you have to go through. I really enjoyed the bullying I got in high school when I “chose” to be gay. I’m sure the thousands of people harassed, persecuted and murdered by the regimes and gangs around the world appreciate your lazy comment that they “chose to be gay”. Do not compare me to a child molester. I looked after my two nephews today, who are five, as I often do, who are well aware I’m gay, as my family is not the bigoted kind, and it is just a fact of life for us, not some crazy moral/ weird thing as you like to make it. And really - they hardly mention it. Five year olds don’t care. I probably look after them better than their own father does. It is highly offensive to compare gay people to paedophiles.Shame on you. Sorry not a chance on being quieter with my demands. Got one life to live, ain’t going to be dictated to by the likes of you and Aussie Spazza and others on here.I know many wonderful heterosexual people and it is also nice to see others supporting us on here. Its a shame a few rotten eggs have to be dropped into the mix.

John Dark says:

06:51pm | 27/06/11

BL
“Present”, not “prevalent”. Big difference.

Anna C says:

01:53pm | 27/06/11

I have to agree with you. Legalising gay marriage won’t legitimise your relationships in the eyes of many especially the elderly, the religious etc etc. Unfortunately for gays, the majority of people and cultures in the world still find homosexuality to be distasteful and abhorrant (and even illegal). 

What I don’t understand is why do gay people want to get married? For a group that is usually showing us how different they are (to the rest of us) by making exhibitions of themselves at the Mardi Gras, why do you suddenly want to conform to society’s standards? Is it the big party and presents? Why do you care what the rest of us think of you? Shouldn’t you all be above that by now?

While I support civil unions, I am not in favour of gay marriage. The last thing I want is to have to spend more time and money going to more bloody weddings.

Sad Sad Reality says:

02:15pm | 27/06/11

Girls just wanna have fun Anna. They just wanna.

Sylvie says:

02:33pm | 27/06/11

@jim morris
Agree “tenacious and manipulative” - the gay lobby.
@Anna C
My thoughts too

Bomb78 says:

03:18pm | 27/06/11

@ Anna C - read my post above. All marriages in Australia are civil unions, but only those consecrated by a priest/rabbi/imam/substitute other holy man/woman have the religious status of ‘marriage’. The two are related, but not the same thing.

Ali says:

12:35pm | 27/06/11

You lose on

Godwins Laws

tony of poorakistan says:

01:32pm | 27/06/11

Can’t use polygamy .... or polyamory, or even polyfidelity. They all refer to relationships between more than two people. I won’t confuse you with the different sub-types.

Lloyd says:

12:43pm | 27/06/11

How did this comment get through? I thought only intelligent people read the Punch.

Anne71 says:

12:52pm | 27/06/11

@LLoyd - Please Do Not Feed the Troll.

Outraged says:

03:40pm | 27/06/11

So, Wazza, you admit you’ve been to a gay bar?! Closet-case much?

RyaN says:

04:17pm | 27/06/11

@Outraged: what is a “gay bar” is that like the apartheid “whites only” style bars?

Tripod says:

04:37pm | 27/06/11

Good onya Wazza,hilarious

HT says:

11:41am | 28/06/11

Lloud - you thought only intelligent people read the Punch? Really?

rfaulks says:

01:33pm | 27/06/11

the difference being that gay marriage is between two ‘consenting’ adults.  Get it? Adults, not children, not animals. 
You narrow-minded moron!

joshwhite says:

03:08pm | 27/06/11

It’s obvious that homosexuals can only use juvenile tactics of name calling and talking over the top of other people to get their way.

The sooner you accept the overwhelming majority find your lifestyle revolting, the better things will be for us.

ps. stop saying my city Sydney is such a gay friendly city when you only inhabit a small corner - you don’t speak for the rest of us !

Ben81 says:

07:53pm | 27/06/11

Josh you do seem to be both narrow minded and a moron, fair cop.
Trying to tie in gay people with bestiality and paedophilia is just sick.

joshwhite says:

11:46am | 28/06/11

Is there an insult handbook you get given when you make the lifestyle choice to become a homosexual ?

Homophobe and narrow minded moron must be 1 and 2.

My point is today in 2011 gay marriage is seen as a real option, so who’s to say what’s normal in the future ?

This is the path we are heading down

Ben81 says:

02:11pm | 28/06/11

Well let’s make it simple for you Josh.
You give us an idea of when you think bestiality and paedophilia will be rife in New York as a result of this, and we’ll hold you to that and see who comes out looking like an idiot.

Sound fair?  I mean you do really believe what you’re saying, right?

joshwhite says:

12:20pm | 29/06/11

Sure, give it 20 years - think about how far things have come in the world of gay rights since the first mardi gras, and how closer to their version of equality they are today than the 70’s.

So all we really need to see on the streets is a paedophile mardi gras, or a bestiality mardi gras / protest rally and we’ll see how things go.

See if you can reply without using the homosexual handbook guide to commenting and throwing in at least 1 insult…

Ben81 says:

01:36pm | 29/06/11

I’ll give you the reply you deserve - you’re an ignorant bigot living in your own little world who isn’t worth attempting to reason with.  One of those people who have failed to put up any reasonable argument and should be pushed aside so we can just get on with things.

I’m not gay for what it’s worth and have always been pretty neutral on the issue really, it’s people like you with your ridiculous arguments that have convinced me to support gay marriage simply because of the hysterical garbage coming from the likes of you attempting to justify your opposition to it. 
Keep it up, shoot yourself in the foot again.  I’m done with you.

joshwhite says:

03:40pm | 29/06/11

Quick call me a bigot and a homophobe again.

The overwhelming majority are against making a mockery of marriage, a random poll conducted on the streets of Paddington isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

Still upset ?

Good, stick to your own little corner of Sydney and stop trying to yell loud enough that every other corner has to hear it

Dr Frued says:

03:31pm | 27/06/11

From a dictionary:
latent homosexuality
n.
A sexual tendency toward members of the same sex that is not consciously recognized or not expressed overtly.

Usually in this instance, your conscious over-compensates eg. your four anti-gay rants are over-compensating for your subconscious desires.. By hitting out at gays so loudly you’re trying to convince your subconscious and everyone else that you don’t have ‘those’ desires.. 

Just come out already Wazza, the LGBT community is a loving one and will still accept you.

Janey says:

10:19am | 28/06/11

I recognise your sarcasm in your writings LL.

However, same sex couples are contributing to the “oversupply of humans” too.  It is their right after all to have children of their own isn’t it, whether it is by adoption, step parenting, a surrogate,  turkey baster or whatever? 

So, although it seems sarcasm is your typical response on a few issues, it is indeed misplaced here.

Jake says:

05:04pm | 27/06/11

I dare say it’d be a better place if it were run by “Wogs, Sheilas and Poofters” than by the mouth-breathing, redneck troglodytes who think the way you do.

I’ll take 1000 gay asylum seekers over one ignorant, complacent, self-important “patriot” with an overwhelming feeling of entitlement just because he happened to fall out of his mother’s crotch on Australian soil.

Why don’t you get out and make some room for people who are trying to improve society rather than enforce their bigotry on others? We’ve already got way too many of your type here.

Lloyd says:

03:03pm | 27/06/11

Anyone that says unAustralian conjures up an image of a Today Tonight watching, origin loving, my family sticker plastering, southern cross sporting dickhead! Try saying that three times in a row. But seriously, its been said before (sighs), yes there are more important topics, but we are capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time.

Claire says:

04:48pm | 27/06/11

hey, hey Lloyd, I’m on your side mate, but leave the footy out of it. Origin is sacred. To be loved by all.
And go QLD…
And also, legalise gay marriage because gay people deserve the same right to the white picket fence, 2.7 kids, a dog and station wagon life as much as anyone.

Lloyd says:

07:16pm | 27/06/11

Sorry Claire! Footy insult retracted!

Lloyd says:

03:00pm | 27/06/11

Genitals don’t get married, people do.

Jake says:

04:22pm | 27/06/11

Oh, your only problem with gay marriage is the definition of the word marriage? So if the definition is legally changed - say by an act or parliament - you won’t have an issue with it?

Legal definitions change regularly. Religious bigotry is timeless.

Jake says:

04:19pm | 27/06/11

“No one’s looking to arrest atheists if they say Christianity is wrong.”

Yes, and no one’s is looking to arrest Christians if they say Atheism is wrong.

You’re damn right Christians have to accept homosexuality. Just like they have to accept Muslims, Atheists, black people or any other group which they might decide they don’t appreciate. Are you suggesting that it should be a legal right for people to discriminate against others because of their beliefs?

Your religious views are never an acceptable reason for discrimination and the fact that Christians - and society as a whole - have gotten away with marginalising gay people for as long as they have is appalling.

“In England, Christians can no longer adopt unless they embrace homosexuality”

What? This is not true at all. UK adoption agencies are required to adhere to anti-discrimination laws - which means they may not exclude gay couples from adopting based only on their sexual preference, however no couple applying to adopt a child is required to “embrace homosexuality”.

There was a well publicised case in the UK where a couple applying to *foster* a child were informed that “if a child came from school and told the foster parents that he or she is homosexual, the parents would have to tell the child that it’s OK”. (http://www.christianpost.com/news/uk-high-court-weighs-whether-christian-couple-can-foster-47442/).

Fostering is very different from adoption as the child is not your own. As such, you don’t get the leeway to push your own values that you would have with your own children. The couple were, quite rightly, informed that if they wanted to foster a child, that they had to be tolerant of the child’s sexuality, regardless of their personal beliefs.

The couple responded saying that they were not capable of that, and withdrew their application. Sounds like a good outcome to me. These children have it hard enough as it is without receiving psychological abuse from their carers for exercising their legal right to be gay.

Do you think it would have been reasonable to allow them to teach the child that black people are all uneducated criminals if that was what they believed? Religion isn’t a free pass to be a bigot.

Anti-discrimination laws exist for the specific reason of preventing this kind of bigotry. It’s the same reason you’re not allowed to refuse service in a store to Muslims or decline employment to someone because of their gender.

If you want to hide from people whose life decisions you don’t approve of, go do it in your church.

“elsewhere Churchies can be imprisoned for merely stating the Biblical view on homosexuality.”

Care to provide a reference for this? What nonsense. You aren’t required to endorse homosexuality and you are even welcome to speak out against it (just don’t expect to be allowed to care for other people’s children if you do). What you are not allowed to do is discriminate against people because they are gay or incite violence or hatred against them.

“Persecution of Christians will be the story of the 21st century”

Oh boo hoo. You’ve still got all the money and all the power. Quit complaining.

Claire says:

04:38pm | 27/06/11

Bahahahahahahah! Persecution of Christan’s… hurts don’t it!
You do realise the insanity of that argument!!!!! You are getting angry at being persecuted for ....persecuting others?
PAH LEASE, a seven year old could pick apart that argument in a second.
The bible is a FICTIONAL book that makes people act and do as it says. A ROOM FULL OF MONKEYS, given the right amount of time, COULD WRITE SHAKESPEARE…... the bible?... 10 MINUETS MAX.

Jake says:

03:31pm | 27/06/11

75% is overstating support for change, however according to opinion polls the numbers were/are:

In 2004: 38% for, 44% against, 18% undecided (Newspoll)
In 2007: 57% for, 37% against, 6% undecided (Galaxy)
In 2009: 60% for, 36% against, 4% undecided (Galaxy)
In 2010: 62% for, 33% against, 5% undecided (Galaxy)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Public_opinion_polls)

The figures are pretty clear cut and the trend is obvious. Support for gay marriage is increasing while opposition is waning.

Those in support of gay marriage are not the “minority whingers”.

Sanity Clause says:

04:50pm | 27/06/11

@Jake,Well you should have some empathy for minorities should you not

Jake says:

05:14pm | 27/06/11

@Sanity Clause
“Well you should have some empathy for minorities should you not “

I do… Right up until that minority starts demanding the curtailment of the basic rights of others for arbitrary reasons.

Ben says:

03:59pm | 27/06/11

That’s a nice theory, until people or organisations that conscientiously object to same sex sexual conduct refuse to acknowledge a same sex couple or refuse to provide them with some kind of service. I can guarantee that those with an objection will quickly lose the right to operate consistently with their conscientiously-held views.

James1 says:

04:33pm | 27/06/11

If the government in question actually took a principled stand on personal liberty, that wouldn’t happen.  However, I understand that the words “principled” and “government” do not belong in a sentence together.

Jake says:

04:56pm | 27/06/11

“Being gay is not normal.”

By what yardstick is being gay not normal?

If you mean that it is only a minority that practice homosexuality, then having blue eyes would not be normal, nor would being Baptist. Should we ban them?

If you mean that homosexuality is not in alignment with the natural act of procreation, then that would mean that people who use birth control or who choose not to have children (or are unable to) or remain abstinent are not normal. Should we ban those things?

If you mean that the bible condemns it, then that would mean that any religious observance other than Christianity (whatever flavour you happen to be) is not normal. Should that be banned?

If you mean because the current legal definition of the term in the Marriage Act of Australia says that it is between a man and a woman, then will it become normal if the definition is changed by act of parliament?

“They are NOT equal. Not when it comes to the right to marry and have children.”

Unfortunately this is one thing you’re correct about… But given the majority of Australians are in favor of recognising gay marriage, that should change soon enough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Public_opinion_polls). Whatever will you do then?! Maybe you can go make up a new word just for heterosexual marriage.

“When homosexuals learn to accept that, we can stop this obsured debate that should be extremely clear to who is right. “

It’s quite clear that the significant majority of Australians support gay marriage and the numbers are steadily increasing.

When bigots like you learn to accept that they are in the minority, we can stop this absurd debate and it should be clear enough then who is “right”... and I’m pretty sure it won’t be you.

Alana says:

09:50am | 28/06/11

I can’t procreate - and I am a straight married woman. So I should not have been allowed to get married? How ridiculous. Gay marriage a go-go I say. Love is always the answer.

Jake says:

04:37pm | 27/06/11

[“Marriage has been between a man & a woman for thousands of years in one form or another.”]

Slavery was legal for thousands of years and still happens in some countries. That doesn’t make it acceptable.

[“How do they have children by other than medical assistance.?”]

How does a heterosexual couple with reproductive dysfunction have children other than by medical assistance? Should they not be allowed to get married, only have a “civil union”?

[“A lot of Hetro couples have lived togheter all their lives without the need for marriage”]

It’s nice that they have the right to choose one way or the other isn’t it?

[“This is not an issue, it a storm in a tea cup. There are more important things that need to be addressed in the world than this superficial desire by a small but very vocal group wanting their own way”]

It’s probably not an issue for you because you’re not gay. I imagine it’s more of an issue for the couples who are in love with each other but are told by their government that they are not allowed to have that love publicly endorsed under the same banner as everyone else.

Social equality is *always* an important issue.

Jake says:

05:10pm | 27/06/11

Yeah it’s simple. They should also have their own word for “human” too. I mean it’s just a word right?

They should get the same rights and all, but I just don’t want anybody thinking that I’m gay because we’re both referred to as “human”.

Then they can’t be accused of degrading the term human.

P.S. Thinly veiled bigotry is still bigotry.

Get Bent says:

05:20pm | 27/06/11

You’re barking up the wrong tree.
This issue has nothing to do with religion,love etc etc
Marriage came before it all.
It was devised as a means to produce a legal heir…often a male.
Gays cannot biologically produce a legal heir.
Hence the term marriage cannot be used.
Find something else and stop boring me to death.

Chris_D says:

05:22pm | 27/06/11

Do you have a point?

Claire says:

09:22am | 28/06/11

It is illegal to marry your brother or sister or parent firstly because it is a danger to any possible child conceived due to an extremely heightened risk of birth defects.
Secondly, it is illegal because you are in situation of trust and/or dependency. Same reason why teachers can’t date students and doctors patients. This argument (gay marriage) is about two, consenting, unrelated adults. You can’t compare gay marriage with incest.

Ben81 says:

07:46pm | 27/06/11

“So what’s next, pedophile marriage?”
No.  Any other concerns?

Paulb says:

10:34pm | 27/06/11

cybaca that is not an argument, its a pastiche of random and ill-considered thoughts from someone (you) who clearly knows nothing of the world outside the bosom of your imaginary friend Jesus.  Honestly, so many of you venomous functional illiterates who call yourselves christians would be more at home enforcing Sharia for the Taliban.

Jake says:

10:31am | 28/06/11

“However, I’m also one of the vast majority who completely and utterly disagree with it.”

62% of Australians support recognising gay marriage
33% of Australians are against
5% are undecided
78% of people support a vote on the matter
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Public_opinion_polls)

“because the homosexual lobby is incredibly successful in nagging and whining like a spoiled toddler until it gets it’s way.”

I think you’re getting them mixed up with the Australian Christian Lobby.

“I still don’t understand why so many homosexuals claim on the one hand to be incredibly proud of their lifestyle choice…and on the other hand spend every waking hour devoted to trying to appear heterosexual.”

You just know that reading a lead-in like this, that the next sentence is going to be truly enlightened…

“From the determination to have “families” by acquiring child accessories through various means”

How silly of me to think that a gay couple might want a child because out of love. Obviously all the gay in their hearts makes them incapable of human love, only the need for fashion accessories.

“through to the idea of a homosexual “marriage” - when a marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman.”

Next they’ll be wanting to vote!

“Where is the pride, when all I can see is regret?”

If you’re so proud of your opinion, then why don’t you get out and protest in public where everyone can see your face?

As a straight person, I take pride in caring for equal rights and marching in the street alongside those people demanding equal treatment.

The greatest regret I have is that people with opinions as utterly stupid, small-minded, uninformed and self-important as yours are part of the society I live in.

Jake says:

08:44am | 28/06/11

You are wasting your time. The anti-gay crowd don’t even know what they’re afraid of, just that it must be stopped at all costs. Almost every argument here is basically “I have no problem if they want to be gay, I just want to limit their rights and freedoms and not have to be nice to them or treat them like humans or have to look at them when I’m out in public. I’m totally tolerant!”

People who think on that level probably aren’t capable of accepting the idea what who someone does or doesn’t sleep with it nothing to do with them.

joshwhite says:

11:10am | 28/06/11

Why do you always jump to this ‘homophobe’ word insinuating people are scared ?

There’s a difference between fear and hate, I don’t know anyone who fears homosexuals….

Lloyd says:

07:37pm | 28/06/11

Are you kidding Josh? Most homophobic men, I would say, are scared of homosexuals because it forces them to address issues they would rather not think about themselves.There is no other sane reason heterosexuals would have so much hatred towards a minority group, except to prove something to themselves. Its bizarre, when they already have the upper hand in most areas of life (except music choice!) that they actively pursue discrimination against homosexuals.And I apologise to the nice heterosexuals on this page, that comment is only for the nasty ones, of which, there are many.

Jake says:

09:53am | 28/06/11

This is such a pathetic excuse to exclude people from a status which brings happiness to so many.

“Unnatural”? Really? Is your computer “natural”? How about tinned food? Polyester shirts? Driving a car? Drinking beer? Contraception? Television?

We’re not wild animals. Our ability for higher thought means that we do a great many things for pleasure, not because it is a natural requirement for life or procreation. Suggesting that marriage is some necessary legal protection offered purely for a couple to have children is asinine.

“So gay marriage should not be ratified anymore then the other unnatural constructs. By natural I specifically define this as the ability for two people to procreate a child - I am not talking about artificial means or adoption”

My friend was injured on her job when she was younger and is sadly unable to conceive a child. Should I let her know that her marriage is “unnatural”?

Many couples do not marry to have children. Many couples are unable to have children. By your definition, women with reproductive dysfunction should not be allowed to marry.

Getting married to someone is about more than just having children. If that’s the only reason some people get married then I can see why so many of them end in divorce now days. Regardless of any historical purpose, marriage today is primarily about love, not procreation.

“a lot of people in this country hold this belief. If you can’t deal with peoples’ genuine concern then politics is not for you.”

A minority of people in this country hold that belief. Most support gay marriage. If you can’t deal with gay people being offered equal rights, then civil society is not for you.

Glen says:

05:05pm | 28/06/11

Last time I checked I couldn’t marry a beer. Pity because me and old amber really love each other. I think we should have the right to marry - a precedent has been set. Otherwise I’ll just keep hitting up other beers, particularly the hot exotic foreign ones.

Of course your friends marriage is valid. What I mean is that given her and hubby without injuries could presumably conceive naturally, as a man and women then they can marry.

This is typical of The Left - anyone who disagrees is a redneck. Well I am calling you lefties out. Go boycott Israel or something.

John Lake says:

07:54am | 28/06/11

Well said. As a side comment people are becoming more and more offended by Biblical things.Our time is measured by AD and BC. One day people will say, “let’s measure time differently and take Jesus out of the measure”.

Jake says:

09:29am | 28/06/11

Just because you don’t consider their apples to be apples, doesn’t mean you’re opinion is the only one. The legal definition of the term marriage is a decision that we as a society get to make. If we want it to include Atheists, it can. If we want it to include immigrants it can. And if we want it to include same-sex couples, it can.

Hiding behind the legal definition of the term is a cop-out. If there is no legal reason to exclude gay couples from the definition, then it should be changed.

The fact is that civil unions do not receive the same legal protections as marriages so the popular opinion that they have the same rights, just with a different term aren’t even correct. However the issue here goes much deeper than simple semantics.

If you’re straight, then I can imagine it doesn’t matter much to you, but look at it from the point of view of a gay couple. They love each other as much as a straight couple. They want to spend their lives together as much as a straight couple. They want their love for each other to be legally recognised in the same way as a straight couple. But they are told by their government that despite being supposedly equal under the law, their love for each other isn’t worthy of the same title as a straight couple.

Sometimes a word is more than just a word. Imagine instead of “Married”, the word we were discussing was “Citizen”. Imagine if, instead of gay people, we were excluding black people from the title. Would it be fair to say “Black people people can have all the same rights as everybody else, but a citizen is defined as a *white* resident, so they should have a different title”?

Using words to segregate and exclude a particular group of people is damaging to the people involved and to society as a whole. Just because a piece of legal text says a citizen must be white, wouldn’t mean that that definition is fair or reasonable, and just because a piece of legal text says a marriage is between a man and a woman doesn’t make that fair or reasonable either.

Getting married to someone you love is something that many of us look forward to being able to do and excluding any of our citizens from that right is divisive and exclusionary for no good reason.

“Should I just roll over and say - sure, let’s have equality and call everything apple if it makes you happy?”

Why not? Are you saying the legal definition of a word which will have no practical effect on you at all is more important than the happiness of thousands of loving couples? Do you really have so little regard for joy of others that you’d put semantics over happiness?

If I knew I could make thousands of couples happy by redefining the word “Banana” to mean a 4 wheeled motor vehicle then I’d be the first person driving my banana to work each day.

“If you can stop chanting long enough to consider a different viewpoint, you might just understand why most people don’t agree with the term gay marriage”

No. The majority of Australians support gay marriage. The latest statistics are 62% for gay marriage, 33% against, 5% undecided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Public_opinion_polls).

The statistics have been posted several times in the comments. If you stopped chanting long enough to consider a different viewpoint, you’d understand why most people don’t agree with you.

Leah says:

10:13am | 28/06/11

“If we want it to include Atheists, it can. If we want it to include immigrants it can. And if we want it to include same-sex couples, it can.”

There’s a flaw in your logic there, Jake. If you look at the definition of marriage, it doesn’t even discuss race or religion. Therefore, race and religion is not an issue when it comes to who wants to marry. However, the definition of marriage does discuss sex. Therefore, sex *is* an issue. You can’t say sex is just as unrelated as race or religion when it comes to marriage.

“Hiding” behind the legal definition is not a cop-out because that defines what marriage actually is (which is the entire point of the debate).

Your analogy with ‘citizen’ is also flawed. You can’t just change the definition of the word ‘citizen’ to mean what you like - ie, just white people. ‘Citizen’ already has a definition, legal context aside, and to exclude people who the word would normally include is actually discrimination. Check a dictionary. The definition of the word ‘citizen’ has nothing to do with race. However ‘marriage’ has never meant between members of the same sex, so to say ‘marriage’ is restricted to members of the opposite sex is not to exclude people who would normally be included by the word ‘marriage’. Again, check a dictionary. The definition of the word ‘marriage’ does have something to do with sex.

Jake says:

02:06pm | 28/06/11

@Leah
“There’s a flaw in your logic there, Jake. If you look at the definition of marriage, it doesn’t even discuss race or religion. Therefore, race and religion is not an issue when it comes to who wants to marry. However, the definition of marriage does discuss sex. Therefore, sex *is* an issue. You can’t say sex is just as unrelated as race or religion when it comes to marriage.”

Legal definitions are not created at the dawn of time and remain set in stone forever more. Voters were once legally described as being male only. That is no longer the case because we, as a society, changed the definition to match our values. Using a legal definition as an excuse not to change a legal definition is most certainly a cop-out.

““Hiding” behind the legal definition is not a cop-out because that defines what marriage actually is (which is the entire point of the debate).”

No. Nobody is saying that the marriage act doesn’t stipulate that marriage is between a man and a woman. It quite clearly does state that. The “entire point of the debate” is that this definition is unnecessarily exclusionary and should, therefore, be changed.

“Check a dictionary.”

Dictionary and legal definitions are very different things. Legal definitions vary from country to country and are set between a country’s parliamentary and judicial systems.

The fact that there are countries in the world - for example the one this very article is about - which currently do recognise gay marriage kind of makes this fact obvious doesn’t it?

Our laws and societal values aren’t bound by the Oxford English Dictionary are they? So why would you use this wording as an excuse not to redefine the legal term to include all couples, not just heterosexual ones?

“Your analogy with ‘citizen’ is also flawed. You can’t just change the definition of the word ‘citizen’ to mean what you like - ie, just white people.”

Actually you can, societies have and sadly, some still do.

Jake says:

02:19pm | 28/06/11

@Leah
“If you look at the definition of marriage, it doesn’t even discuss race or religion.”

I should also add that prior to the 2004 amendment, the Marriage Act of 1961 did not discuss gender or directly prohibit gay marriage (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961#Preliminaries). The 2004 amendment included a section to define marriage as:

“the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”

Nowhere else in the act, is there any stated requirement that a married couple be of opposite sex. So prior to the 2004 amendment, by your own standard, gay marriage was perfectly acceptable. If we can preclude gay marriage by amending the act, why can we not allow it in the same manner?

Also stop and think for a second about people who are not definitively male or female? Are they allowed to marry? If so, which gender do we allow?

The fact is that gender difference is is no way a limiting factor on a couple’s ability to love and be devoted to each other for life which is what marriage means in today’s society. It is nothing more than an arbitrary boiler-plate stipulation and should be removed.

Jake says:

08:52am | 28/06/11

Wow! A moderate, reasonable opinion?! You’re in the wrong place!

In all seriousness, I agree with you 100%. Marriage is a legal status and should thus be made available to *every* citizen of this country, regardless of their sexual preference. That being said, churches are private organisations and entitled to their own beliefs and should not be required to marry anybody they do not feel appropriate.

However, once a couple are legally married, that status should be recognised - legally - by everyone, including religious groups, regardless of their beliefs.

ABF says:

02:13pm | 28/06/11

I’m probably not what you would call a moderate, but after some close personal experiences with death, I would hate for anyone in this world to have love denied to them from simple legalities.  So if marriage creates a platform to help you have a stable, loving relationship, knock yourselves out and have a blast at the wedding reception.  And frankly, I think the bigger issue is about marriage and getting people to recognise its value rather than who is doing it…

Matt says:

02:40pm | 28/06/11

Religious hey?  Well, your god made me homosexual so if you’re looking for someone to blame, blame him.

Jake says:

10:07am | 28/06/11

“I guess it will be okay for to marry my beautiful goat now, eh?”

Well that’s a stupid parallel to draw and you’re stupid for trying to draw it.

A goat cannot legally consent to marriage. Neither can a person who is drunk, hence the reason why a celebrant in Australia is not legally allowed to marry a couple if either one is intoxicated (or a goat). If you spent any time understanding the topic before you invited us all in on your goat fantasy, you would know this.

Marriage is a legal status in Australia and, as such, requires both parties be fit to sign a legal contract.

Trying to show an equivalence between gay couples and bestiality eh? You’re a class act.

Jake says:

01:34pm | 28/06/11

62% of the population are in favour of recognising gay marriage, 33% oppose it. It will go to the vote soon enough and when it does, it’ll pass. Once that happens, you can crawl back into your hole just like the folks who opposed recognising black slaves as human beings.

Another Chris says:

05:46pm | 28/06/11

62% Is a figure based on a cross section of society. Pro LBGT Marriage folks will hold onto that figure and I don’t blame them.
I will forever disagree with Gay Marriage on the Principle that Marriage belongs with Heterosexual couples that can biologically procreate and create a stable family unit. Don’t dilute the meaning of it by pushing this agenda. Homosexual relationships (while fine) don’t contribute biologically to society.  Marriage should be reserved for the former in acknowledgment of that

Matt says:

07:54pm | 28/06/11

Another Chris - did you miss all the other comments about heterosexual couples that are either infertile or choose not to have children.  Yet they are allowed to be married, and you seem perfectly fine with that, or didn’t think about that when tapping out your stupidity onto a keyboard..  Not to mention we DO contribute because there are many same sex couples raising children. Just because you choose to pop out babies doesn’t make the world a better place.

Another Chris says:

11:27am | 29/06/11

Nice Matt…Nice. You choose the extremely obvious to make a point on. Fine.
I have friends who struggled with conceiving but did indeed want to have children. My mate was for all accounts infertile. Finally, they have just conceived and they are over the moon. They’re married and have both the financial stability and loving balanced (and straight) relationship to found a family on..
Infertility is sad and unfortunate but a low picking if you’re using that to justify your need to marry.
If they choose not to have children, fine. You will probably see that’s a smaller minority. If for some reason they DO conceive, the platform of support is there.
Did I say popping out babies makes the world a better place? No. Does popping them out into a happy stable (i’d take either of those) home with a Biological Mum and Dad make a difference? I believe so. When I say contribution, I say it with neutrality. Adoption should be reserved for those who in a perfect world could biologically conceive. That does not include Men with Wombs and Women with Male reproductive organs…bit of a hint right there.
Finally, my opinion is not stupid, just different and not emotionally driven unlike the the push by the pro-LBGT marriage sector.

SC says:

11:30am | 28/06/11

Ok…I just saw the ‘performance’ on You-tube. I am proud to be gay and I am for gay marriage naturally and I am most pleased that NY governments have passed it. Then I saw the ‘performance’ on You Tube and thought…geeszz… marriage and adoption of kids which will tend to follow (being a great thing of course…and yet we have these “muppets” parading around in rediculous outfits chanting “we’re queer” ...what kind of message does that send to people around us who already have difficulty accepting who we are. C’mon fellow gay men and women….look up queer in the dictionary….start behaving like responsible people, sure celebrate…..but celebrate who we really are not what we have accepted other people thinking what we are (as “queer”). If you parade like fools in rediculous clothing with rediculous mannerisms, what do you expect? I for one wouldnt allow my child to be looked after by these idiots. Responsibility is one neglected element in marriage (and adoption of kids)....parading like that and carrying on like that doesnt give a positive message of responsibility for us.

SC says:

11:55am | 28/06/11

Although Jason Mckenna’s comment is narrow-minded and he obviously has the brain of a retarded sparrow…...this is an example of the negative feelings we generate out there. Yes we are gay, but I think we can show the world we aren’t all muppets like some of them seen on You-Tube and this “gay mardi gra” parade. Or can we? There you have it.

Jake says:

01:27pm | 28/06/11

“In fact, the ONLY justification I have heard for all this hoopla and hand wringing is something along the lines of “You have it, so I have to have it too   - like a petulant toddler wanting anything someone else has merely because the someone else has it.”

Yes, the common term for this “me too” attitude is “Equal Rights”.

What a bunch of whingers they are for expecting to be afforded the same legal status and rights as everybody else. Why can’t we go back to the good old days when we only had to treat people equally if we liked them?

Jake says:

01:21pm | 28/06/11

Actually the scenario most researchers seem to consider the likeliest is that it was caused by blood-to-blood contact while butchering monkeys for bush meat.

Countdown until someone posts the discredited research papers which suggest AIDS emerged spontaneously among gay people due to bacteria in the anus as proof that homosexuality is wrong… 5… 4… 3…

Pete says:

12:09pm | 28/06/11

“indissoluble marriage between a man and woman”  So how come you guys are into annulment?  You know , it never happened.  The kids were probably a religiously significant event. sweep it under the carpet for the right price.  Wouldnt some one who had their marriage annulled have to also get a divorce legally?  but that not a problem to all the frocked ones is it?  I mean, it never happened

what a pack of bury my head in the sand hypocrits.