There’s no logical reason to allow gay marriage

iansand says:

03:38pm | 30/07/09

Absolutely.  And we should prevent infertile people marrying as well.  They can’t produce children either.

D Hall says:

03:44pm | 30/07/09

But do you not agree that definitions can change, over time?

Daniel says:

03:45pm | 30/07/09

This strikes me as a very weak argument. We can’t change the definition of marriage because that would be against how we have historically defined marriage? Going by that logic we can never change anything. The having children bit also seem to be a rather silly justification, should we perhaps deny marriage to infertile couples as it would further devalue marriage as a child-producing institution?

Rob says:

03:47pm | 30/07/09

“There’s no reason to change that”

Is that the best you can do?

If so then I counter with..

“There’s no reason NOT to change that”.

What does it matter to you?  You see marriage as man, woman and at the very least potential for child.  No problems with that.  Or even Man and woman, no child.

But why is it a problem when others see it as man/man or woman/woman?  All you have done is claim your definition and expectation as being all that matters, there is nothing to support your argument from a factual viewpoint, it’s all just your own emotive view.

Given man/man or woman/woman marriage doesn’t hurt anybody why do you oppose it?  Just based on your own emotive view?

That is plainly ridiculous.  If nobody is being harmed then why not allow it?  It’s time we got the control freaks out of our lives and regained our individual freedoms.  People who oppose gay marriage probably dion’t have gay friends anyway so it’s not like they will be scandalised when two people of the same sex turn up wearing rings on a certain finger…

For the record I’m a straight married guy with a mutually agreed family plan in place.

wolf says:

03:53pm | 30/07/09

OK so the definition of a ‘marriage’ is for the provision of children.

What do we do in cases where one or more partners is a hetrosexual relationship is barren?  Maybe to preserve your definition we should conduct fertility tests before issuing a marriage licence?

How about if a fertile married couple don’t produce children within a ‘reasonable’ timeframe, say 10 years?  Should they automatically be divorced for failing to produce kids?

The only thing which isn’t logical is your argument.

Josh says:

03:57pm | 30/07/09

I thought you might have something new to bring to the debate but then you brought it back to “won’t somebody please think of the Children!?!”

Under the current laws, I, as a gay man, could go marry a woman for whom I have no love, have kids and be sleeping with a man on the side. For all intents and purposes I would still be classed as being married in the eyes of the government.

The government should either allow same-sex marriage or get out of the marriage business all together.

Keith says:

04:02pm | 30/07/09

I’m a gay male and think gay marriage is crazy. Not all gays are for gay marriage. Not all gays hang out in the gay community and share their views.

Sophie says:

04:12pm | 30/07/09

So, gay relationships are *almost* but not quite as equal as heterosexual relationships? Read any George Orwell of late, Tom?
As for the absurd argument that most marriages are entered into with the expectation of children being produced, try telling that to the millions of happily married (and *gasp* childless) couples the world over. Are their unions and their love for each other diminished because of the lack of progeny? This is such an archaic, retrograde argument, Tom.
The reality is that people marry because they love each other and want to commit to spending the rest of their lives together; how exactly does that preclude gay couple? Love is love, and with so much hatred in the world right now we should be celebrating love in all it’s forms - stuff whether kids will be produced or not!

Graham says:

04:14pm | 30/07/09

This debate is about Rights as opposed to the name of the institution. “Gay Marriage” is a term coined by those with an agenda, which you have proven dear author. Marriage was originally about protection. In this instance, the institution that is required is to provide equal rights to those discriminated against. This in itself is a form of protection. However let’s not get caught up on the word, Civil Union would be far more agreeable for you?

Philippa Fraser says:

04:16pm | 30/07/09

This argument is beyond ludicrous. Just because a form of discrimination is ‘part of our cultural heritage’ does not make it acceptable! Honestly, if we valued our cultural heritage of discrimination, then we would remove women’s right to vote or the citizenship of Indigenous people or re-introduce any number of discriminatory practices.
Discrimination is not acceptable. Ever.
I value my freedom as a woman to work outside the home, to vote, to reproductive choice. I am also painfully aware of the many areas in which I still experience discrimination just because of my gender and I do not value those things. The only people who value discriminatory practices are those who do not have to endure their effects on their lives!
I am married and heterosexual and I have children yet I can see clearly that there is no reason that any consenting, loving adults should not be allowed to marry. I know that not everyone *wants* to marry, but preventing some people from marrying is discrimination, there’s no question about it.

DoctorK says:

04:27pm | 30/07/09

Tom what an embarrassing piece of drivel - you don’t know how ridiculously biased you are. Remember the ‘brown eyes - blue eyes’ experiment by legendary anti-racism campaigner by Jane Elliot? How about imagining people pre-judging your relationship with your wife, and deciding if it was worthwhile or valid by their rules? How must that feel? Dress your bigotry up any way you want, but let the rest of us move on.

Lance says:

04:28pm | 30/07/09

The argument about gay marriage does not revolve around the notion of being able to produce children; it is about the recognition of gay couples as being equal in the eyes of not only the law, but also of society. Not only do some heterosexual couples decide not to have children, some choose to have children but not marry. That is their choice (in some cases) and right, just as in the same way it should be the right of gay couples to decide whether or not to marry. Your argument is illogical and based on archaic ideas of what a marriage should be; it’s time the law reflected today’s society.

Chris says:

04:30pm | 30/07/09

Very weak argument…

Tim says:

04:41pm | 30/07/09

Wow,
Tom points out the obvious fact that gay couples ARE different to heterosexual couples and look at the gay lobby swing into force.

Margaret Gray says:

04:48pm | 30/07/09

Rights and equality are not the issue.

The people who seem most hung-up on being “married” are gay people.

Maybe someone could explain why that is? 

And let’s avoid the strawmen shall we.

Sam says:

05:31pm | 30/07/09

What a peculiar and weak argument. I suppose I should go and tell my (postmenopausal) mother that her second marriage fails to comply with society’s expectations of a union that leads to pregnancy. Sorry Mum.

Gibbot says:

05:32pm | 30/07/09

It used to be part of our cultural heritage for the woman to become the property of her husband. We rightly evolved out of that mindset. I don’t see how this issue is any different.

You’ll have to do better than that, Tom.

Rob says:

05:33pm | 30/07/09

Your article is embarrasingly poor in its logic, justification and even factual content.
Marriage has changed considerably over thousands of years and there are currently many versions of marriage in different societies and cultures. Your logic would require societies that still have marriage arrangements which discriminate against women to never change. Your logic would require them to retain their traditional cultural/historical practices.
As a member of parliament your ignorance is staggering.  There is no such thing as a supporting mother’s pension that is only payable to women.  How can a labor MP be so ignorant in this area.
I am a married heterosexual male with grown up children.  We are dismayed that the labor party keeps churning out political dinosaurs like you. Gay and lesbian people should have the same right to marry if they choose to.

Billy C says:

05:37pm | 30/07/09

Does this mean that infertile heterosexual couples should not be married?
Also would it be possible for you to publish this article in your news letter to constituents. I don’t think it’s fair that only online readers can gain the benefit of your stunning logic.

Mondo Rock says:

05:39pm | 30/07/09

The simple fact is that while some marriages do not produce children, no gay relationships can produce children.

Indeed - nor can women who have reached the age of menopause. 

Since it is impossible for any relationship with such a woman to bear children - and since this is a fundamental qualifier before a relationship can be a marriage (according to Tom) - then quite obviously all women should be banned from entering new marriages after they reach menopause.

But why stop there - it’s quite clear from Tom’s explanation that all pre-existing marriages should be legally dissolved once the woman reaches menopause.  Obviously the relationship can no longer technically be a ‘marriage’ once the woman becomes infertile - so what harm could possibly come from automatic marital de-registration?

I mean - there’s no logical reason to object to that.  Right Tom?

Texty says:

05:40pm | 30/07/09

Tom,

Whilst we are from different sides of the political fence and do not always agree, this is one area we do agree on but your argument and thus by extension your article is extremely weak as most other comments have highlighted.  It is an article, which screams “I want to write a religious article but don’t want to offend readers”.  You would have been much better off being honest with readers and highlight the real reason for the article.  That is, you are a member of the ALP Catholic Right and you are trying to earn brownie-points with the factional bosses before the ALP Conference debates this issue.

Cameron says:

05:47pm | 30/07/09

A poor attempt to justify an existing prejudice.

Mark says:

05:58pm | 30/07/09

You could have made exactly these arguments for maintaining the insitution of slavery, or denying women equal rights, or any other form of institutionalised discrimination that was “part of our cultural heritage” until the point of time at which they weren’t.

If we allow a man and a woman who have no intention (or even ability)  to procreate qualify to be recognised by the state as married, with all the benefits and consequences that brings, then there is no reason not to do so for same-sex couples, other than discrimination, pure and simple.

And if the state does not want to offer the recognition of marriage on an equal, non-discriminatory basis, then it should get out of the marriage bsuiness altogether and leave it to the churches.

Logical says:

06:30pm | 30/07/09

If the United States did not change its definition of marriage, the parents of the current President would not have been able to marry.

Patrick says:

06:38pm | 30/07/09

I don’t care what they call it, just so long as 2 people of the same sex in a relationship have the same rights, benefits and status of 2 people of opposing sexes in a relationship. All other discussion is moot.

Leigh Bennett says:

06:41pm | 30/07/09

“His argument was, essentially, that there are lots of bad traditional marriages and there would be some good gay marriages therefore we shouldn’t be worried about gay marriage. While a lot of people may agree and leaving aside the fact that there would also be a lot of bad gay marriages.”

Tom - Not a good summation of David’s view, you do a good job of creating a value judgement on the quality of gay relationships. So only some gay marriages would be good, but a lot would be bad. What a disgusting and bigoted view. Your bias against the quality of homosexual relationships is very clear. It’s time for you to resign from the Labor party and join the extreme right of the Liberal party mate, because thats where these views belong

MF says:

06:51pm | 30/07/09

Does this mean gay people get to pay less tax, since you know, they get less rights?  No? 

You don’t like gay marriage?  That’s fine.  Nobody’s trying to force you into it.  Nobody’s shoving it in your face.  I really fail to see how someone else’s relationship status is really any of your business.

phylis.stein says:

07:02pm | 30/07/09

I blame the Wedding Planners. The prospect of a new gay client group must be delicious for the industry. That or the toaster manufacturers. Mark keeps talking abut Institutions, but srsly, who wants to live in one?  And Mondo Rock is absolutely right, if his quip was written last century. Post menopausal lesbians can now procreate if they want to. (quelle Horror!!)  Let’s just apply contract law where appropriate, and the theatrical religiosity can be a cultural overlay for those so inclined.

Ben Peters Jones says:

07:30pm | 30/07/09

Marriage is historically linked closer to property ownership than to procreation. I assume you’re also going to argue that women can’t buy houses outside marriage too.

Brendan of Wollongong NSW says:

08:13pm | 30/07/09

Same-sex matrimony exists in a number of countries and states around the world. This means that the global custom of marriage now undeniably includes same-sex couples (whether bigoted opponents and bigoted laws acknowledge that fact or not). Relatedly, marriage law did not precede the existence of marriage but came after it. To imply that same-sex marriages do not exist or are invalid is akin to saying marriages were not real until we had laws saying they were, which is just plain nonsense.

Tom says “our definition of marriage needs to reflect the broader understanding and expectations about marriage within our society” then segues into the claim that marriage is about having children. Yet unmarried people having been having children since the first ape stood upright, long before institutionalised marriage. Further, “our definition of marriage” says nothing, neither expressed nor implied, about procreation potential being a requirement for state-sanctioned wedlock. This is a fanciful notion, hinging as it does on nuclear stereotypes of family, whereas the lived experience of human existence is more vibrant and diverse than that. Consider the affrerements of 15th Century France for example—http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823110231.htm

If human history tells us anything, it is that marriage is what we make of it. And if statistics are true that, on average, marriage couples live longer and better than unmarried couples, then this is not only a civil rights and social justice matter, but an imperative matter of community health and wellbeing that ought not be denied a moment longer.

Jayson says:

08:16pm | 30/07/09

“The simple fact is that while some marriages do not produce children, no gay relationships can produce children. Children may be involved but they haven’t been produced as a result of the sexual relationship between the couple.”

A sterile heterosexual couple cannot produce children either and there is always surrogacy.

“Gay relationships do not meet our historical/cultural understanding of marriage”

Until recently inter-racial marriages were outlawed (To my knowledge). Yet now they are a common thing and no one looks any differently at people of different races. Homosexual marriage would follow suit. There is no reason for it not to.

“The refusal to include gay relationships in the definition of marriage is not discrimination.”

Yes it is, discrimination is the act of refusing something to someone based on class or category rather than individual merit.

It is important to note that while ‘discrimination’ does have negative connotations it happens all the time. Often without people noticing it or accepting it as a fact of life.

“If I were to apply for a single mothers pension I would not receive it, and rightly so. I would not have been discriminated against, I just didn’t meet the definition.”

Yes you have. See above definition as to why.

You’ve made few valid points and I am glad that you didn’t bring the ‘marriage is a religious thing’ into it (It’s not atheist’s get married and there are religious homosexuals) or the notion that it is unnatural because that is a fallacious argument.

It is illogical to outright ban homosexual relationships.

While I obviously disagree with your point of view I believe you’re brave to have spoken out against gay marriage.

Billy says:

08:18pm | 30/07/09

Gay marriage is a terrible idea. Every child deserves the right to have a mother and a father. Sooner or later one of these children who were raised by two males or two females will sue their ‘parents’ for denying them the right to have a Mum and Dad - it would be a very easy case to win I’m sure.

Instead of gay marriage, Australia should head in another direction and strengthen traditional marriage. We should start by outlawing no fault divorce. This would return young peoples respect and hope for the Natural institution of marriage.

Gay marriage also turns the Bible into a hate document, and opens up church leaders to the threat of legal action for simply spreading God’s word.

To treat the most caring members of the country as hate filled bigots is a disaster - if we malign Christians then who will protect the poor, feed the homeless and provide hope to millions of young Aussies.

Hamish vetice says:

10:52pm | 30/07/09

This is far from an issue that keeps me awake at night, but I do wonder, why people who are anti gay marriage spend the night worrying about it?  Seriously, it doesn’t directly affect them, so who cares what people do in their own home?

Bron says:

11:16pm | 30/07/09

I can’t see a logical reason to continue to have State Governments either, but there you go…..Seriously, in a world full of hate, violence & child neglect, what is the problem with public & legal recognition of committed, loving relationships between consenting adults, especially if they can provide that commitment, love & support to the rearing of children? Maybe we just need to get rid of the term marriage for something more inclusive? We don’t all have moral beliefs that preclude homosexuality & I believe allowing religion to dictate legislation sets a dangerous precedent. And “Billy”, I certainly disagree with your assertion that practising Christians are the most caring members of the community, as I am sure would the great number of non-Christians who make massive contributions to the “protection of the poor, the feeding of the homeless & provision of hope to young Australians”. How could gay marriage turn the Bible into a “hate document”? The Bible is the documented belief system of a certain percentage of the population; it only becomes a “hate document” when its tenets are forced upon people who are not part of that religious belief.

Michael says:

04:31am | 31/07/09

Thats easy Hamish, most homophobic people have homosexual desires themselves, every time the subject comes up they get angry at their own desires and need to strike out.

Josh says:

09:52am | 31/07/09

I just don’t believe that gays should get married.  Live together, get defacto status and gov handouts and have sex.  I just do think that we should start down this parth.  Soon we will me marrying swinger groups or god knows what else. Live together and be happy.

Mobius Ecko says:

10:19am | 31/07/09

Though not stated or inferred this is about one thing and one thing only, and has always been about this one thing, religion.

Mike says:

11:31am | 31/07/09

I think many valid points are rasied in this article.

Firstly, the cultural heritage of recognising marriage as being between a man and a woman is by no means a religious crusade. It is a belief that has been held by people of various religous and non religous persuasions.

I seem to think it would be more beneficial for “gay rights” activists to seek truely beneficial reforms in terms of “gays” being recognised as true de facto relationships. Thus enjoying all the economic and social rights of a married couple. The current government has done this with superannuation but there are other areas that need improving. These are true areas of discrimination. Leave marriage for what it has always been recognised to be, between a man and a woman. I think those against this article fail to realise that logic doesnt always have a scientific basis, it can sometimes have a cultural or historical basis.

Martin says:

12:12pm | 31/07/09

This is a well considered and intelligent article. I fully support what you say.

HRHshirley@gmail.com says:

12:17pm | 31/07/09

Gee. I’m 51 and widowed. I guess if I find another Mr Right, as remote as that possibility might be, I shouldn’t marry because we won’t be producing children? So, regardless of my feelings about commitment, I should just live with this bloke? Our marriage would be meaningless in the terms of the mainstream view of the purpose of marriage? I thought in modern times, now that we have gotten away from marrying young girls off to cement agricultural relationships between families, that marriage was understood to be a public celebration of love and commitment between two people. If the two people happen to be the same sex, how does that change the fundamental reason for them wanting to marry? Stop the misery these committed people are exposed to by society’s refusal to acknowledge their relationship as loving and sound and allow same sex marriage. Now.

fehowarth says:

12:21pm | 31/07/09

There is also no logical reason why there should not be gay marriages.  Now that they are considered as a couple for legal and benefit reasons, it is only fair that if this is what they want, it should be so,  I personally cannot see any real reason for any type of marriage, whether same sex or between men and woman.  Men can claim supporting parent benefits, the same as woman if they have children in their care.

Andy says:

12:55pm | 31/07/09

Any party that supports gay marriage will lose my vote forever. Call me what you like but i will never support it.

Dave Sag says:

01:08pm | 31/07/09

What a stupid debate.  Give same-sex couples the same rights as mixed-sex couples and be done with it.  Anything less is fundamentally discriminatory.

People get married for all manner of reasons, but overwhelmingly because it makes them happy, is a way of publicly celebrating and acknowledging their love, and because it entails commitments, ie vows, made in the presence of friends, family, and in the case of some, their god or gods.

Laws should exist to create the maximum amount of happiness.  That’s the fundamental position of utilitarians and the basis of much of our common law. (i am told, but I am not a lawyer.)  Laws that set out to stifle happiness are bad laws.

I guess you could argue that gay marriages make homophobes unhappy, but, frankly, that’s a weak excuse. 

I have two dear friends, very happy, very loving lesbian couple who, via the miracle of modern medical technology have had a beautiful baby boy.  Should their child be condemned by the law to be a bastard?  Is that fair?  Does that create happiness?

Rob says:

01:13pm | 31/07/09

Tom,

Simply going through a narrowing of the definition/purpose of marriage so as to exclude gay marriage is not sufficient an argument. You may as well say “I don’t like it, therefore it should remain banned”. I cannot see any reason why all the functions of a civil society that you ascribe to the existence of hetrosexual marriage would be diminished by allowing gay marriage.

Surely in a liberal democracy, this debate should have been over ages ago.

Sar says:

01:16pm | 31/07/09

Actually, can we also arrange for hetero, legally married couples that havent borne children by the end of the third year to have their marriage annulled - as it isn’t a real one without kids, anyway.

Oh, and stop being a tosspot!

Calvin Hobbes says:

01:19pm | 31/07/09

I think you forgot to include the argument that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and that us disgusting homos don’t deserve to have the same rights as breeders because we choose such an immoral lifestyle.

Whatever dude, just more prejudice to add to the pile.

Fingers crossed you get caught in a sex scandal soon.  That would be sweet, sweet irony.

Bugalug says:

05:52pm | 31/07/09

As a married hetro with no children, I would not really be bothered if we did not ‘qualify’ for marriage.  Got married 10 years ago mostly to keep the family happy, but looking back I would have been happy enough to take a ‘civil union’ that entitled my wife to inheritance etc and vice versa.  God is dead, there is no one truth…. make your own way

Darin says:

06:14pm | 31/07/09

Tom

Your argument is essentially based on two points. Firstly, purely for historical purposes, marriage should continue to be legally defined as between a man and a woman, and secondly that because of societal expectations of what constitutes a marriage, i.e. having children, that same-sex couples are not eligible for it. For you the distinguishing difference between an opposite-sex and same-sex relationship is not whether it involves love or life long commitment, but on the obvious gender differences (I think we already know that one) and the ability to procreate naturally.

Firstly, many historical limitations on who can marry have been lifted over time, and the basis for why two people marry have also changed. yes, marriage is based on the natural biological pairing of men and women, but as you say, relationships are more than just sex or procreation. It is about the life long, loving commitment between two people. In trying to exclude same-sex couples from being ‘eligible’, you devalue the special nature of what marriage is about in today’s society by suggesting that its sole distinguishing feature is procreation.

The decision to marry in contemporary times has little or nothing to do with having children. Foremost is because two people love each other, and secondly they wish to enter into a legal union and share their lives with all the privileges and obligations that come with it.

But even if one allows, for the sake of argument, that having children is at the foremost of reasons for opposite-sex couples, you do not offer anything new to demonstrate why same-sex couples should be denied the opportunity to enter into a legal union with the same privileges and obligations, other than for historical or procreation reasons. Allowing same-sex couples to enter into equal legal unions does not threaten opposite-sex unions in anyway. All it does is remove a societal discrimination that fails any rational consideration.

fi says:

10:00pm | 31/07/09

There must be volumes written about why we should maintain marriage as a union between a man and a woman, so I think your short article gave a fair overview.

Steve Robinson says:

05:00pm | 02/08/09

Ok - so it’s because of children? Seriously - you must be a cretin to even try and pass this off as a serious argument against gay marriage. As others have quite rightly pointed out - what about infertile couples, couple who don’t want children (such as myself and my soon to be wife) or elderly couples where the woman is post-menopausal? Should they be denied marriage? It would seem only fair according to your pathetically narrow definition of marriage.

And who’s to say anyway that very many gay and lesbian couples don’t want children - just because, currently, they are unable to reproduce without some kind of intervention such as IVF or through adoption, I know many gay couples that intend on finding a way to have children. Children that won’t be afforded the protections under family law that those of married couples currently enjoy.

The fact is this: the only reason to prevent gay and lesbian people marrying is to perpetuate societal biases that would have us believe that: “their” relationships aren’t worth as much as “our” relationships.

Inevitably opponents of same-sex marriage are just closet bible bashers pretending that they have made their own mind up on this issue instead of just toeing the line and being apologists for religious bigotry masquerading as public policy. This kind of thinking belongs in the pages of Alice in Wonderland - verdict first, trial later!

Australia is, like it or not, a secular democracy. The views of the churches should hold no more sway than any other community group. To deny rights to any group in our community should mean that the burden of proof lies with those who would withhold these rights, instead we have a situation where rights are denied and somehow those denied these rights are expected to justify why they should be granted them. Pathetic!

Grow up Tom!

EqualRightsNOW says:

09:00pm | 02/08/09

What about straight couples who adopt children? As you say ‘Children may be involved but they haven’t been produced as a result of the sexual relationship between the couple.’ According to this very ‘logic’ couples who adopt children shouldn’t be married either.

‘I have no objection to some form of recognition’ - well what is this ‘some’ form of recognition? If you think there should be ‘some’ what is it? What can you offer to someone who is in no way different to you, except for who they love, that will suffice? Not much I think.

I think it’s sad that you think that marriage should only be between a man and a woman when marriage itself is a social construct. Culture is fluid and changes - it isn’t stagnant and I think you need to realize that the times are changing. What is it to you if a man and a man or a woman and a woman get married? No one is forcing you to be a homosexual.

My only bit of hope when hearing this sort of veiled homophobic prejudice is that one day gay marriage will be legal. There is no doubt in my mind about that. But I hope that it will be sooner rather than later. That my peers have the chance to be married their whole lives not just the last few years.

Jeremy says:

09:20pm | 02/08/09

What an embarrassment for the ALP that they’ve resolved to inflict the illogical prejudices of people like Tom on the community for as long as they’re in power.

Let’s hope it’s not too long, then. I certainly won’t be voting for them.

Nicole says:

10:36pm | 02/08/09

To say we should allow some recognition of gay relationships but to call it by a different name is utterly ridiculous! One of the greatest reasons to allow gay marriage is to stop this insane idea that homosexuality is abnormal. By not allowing it to be called marriage is exactly the problem. If two people love and are commited to each other then they should be allowed to be married. It is that exact inequality and segregation that needs to be put behind us!

Tim says:

12:00am | 03/08/09

I guess it’s easy to sit there and gloat about your wonderful life, because you aren’t the one missing out. What a shallow and closed minded theory. Exclusion of two grownup people who love eachother and want to be together is wrong in any sense. Perhaps if you were without it, you might realise what so many others are unable to have.

RainbowSleeve says:

08:49am | 03/08/09

I have to admit that, as a gay person, this was certainly an argument that I have not heard before… and thank you for sharing it with us because it is an important one to consider. Many people have concerns about the “slippery slope” from gay marriage to gay family,

The only thing that I can say is that this is not a predictor of behaviour. Many straight couples marry and do not have children, and this is by choice. Many straight couples do not marry. Many straight couples are in a de facto relationship with children. There are single parents of either gender. What I see as an important issue is the misconception about enforcement.

This isn’t about enforcement. It is about choice. It is about giving a disadvantaged cultural group in society the choice about how to define their relationship in the eyes of society and the law.

Emma says:

08:54am | 03/08/09

And the earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese.

This argument is archaic and quite frankly, laughable. The sole defining characteristic of allowable marriage is to produce children? Tom, are you an investor in an IVF clinic?

While we’re living in the past, let’s smite our neighbours and throw a couple of Wiccans on the barbie, just for old time’s sake.

jboy says:

08:59am | 03/08/09

make them suffer along with the rest of us

Natalie says:

11:33am | 04/08/09

I think most of the commenters have said it, but your argument is like a doily. Full of holes and whimsy.

JME says:

01:51pm | 04/08/09

“Historic” deffinitions are just that- Historic. Marriage no longer has a specific definition. It in no way guarentees pro-creation or the desire to do so, it simply exists as a public recognition of a relationship two people have decided to be in and a collaborative step forward in the lives of the people involved.
A large number of ‘Married’ couples these days do not bear children at all but still marry- simply for their advancement as a couple.
The idea of tradional marriage definitions or ideals is outdated and we are already (by comenting on this issue) making positive steps forward in re-defining the modern idea of marriage- Open up the doors and let the redefinition begin.

Louise says:

11:37am | 11/08/09

Keith said: “I’m a gay male and think gay marriage is crazy. Not all gays are for gay marriage. Not all gays hang out in the gay community and share their views.”

Listen to the man!

Louise says:

11:43am | 11/08/09

Billy said: “Instead of gay marriage, Australia should head in another direction and strengthen traditional marriage. We should start by outlawing no fault divorce. This would return young peoples respect and hope for the Natural institution of marriage.”

Well said.

Not many gays would sign up for “marriage” if no-fault divorce dno longer existed.

We all know gays only want to be divorcees like all their het friends.

Janet says:

08:46am | 21/08/09

“If I were to apply for a single mothers pension I would not receive it, and rightly so. I would not have been discriminated against, I just didn’t meet the definition.”
Except that we don’t have a ‘single mother’s pension’ in Australia. We have a ‘supporting parent’s benefit’. So you would get it, under the same criteria, if you are a single mum or a single dad.
If you’re going to make a weak argument, at least get your facts straight.

Bec says:

08:46am | 25/08/09

My husband and I can’t have children - no fault of our own, medical negligence caused infertility in him. Does that mean we shouldn’t have been allowed to formalise our relationship? Does that make our marriage any less valid? I would think that in comparison to some marriages I know that are based on children, our relationship has a depth that some friends’ relationships lack - we have open and honest communication, we make sacrifices for each other, we have truly tested “in sickness and inhealth” with both of us having major illnesses and hospital stays (myself in the past fortnight, with my husband taking months of work now to take care of me), and both of us being there 24/7 to support one another. But according to your definition that marriage being based around “having children” and that gay marriage is “Invalid” because there is no way they can have children sexually; we shouldn’t be married at all. Answer me this - what do you say about my marriage then?

David says:

09:14pm | 25/08/09

Gays shouldn’t be able to get married as we’ve never let them.  Allowing gays to marry would make them the same as others, which we shouldn’t as they’re not equal.

Tom, in time you will be disappointed.  Same sex marriage will be available in Australia as it is to infertile heterosexuals or mixed-race couples today.  I hope your children are heterosexual and fertile.

alan cotterell says:

07:05am | 26/08/09

Back when there were ‘ladies’ compartments on Vic trains, I saw a person questioned about their sex at a ticket office.  He/she was most indignant, and rightly so!  Are we to have a legally imposed gene test before we’re allowed to marry?  I suggest the religous right should clear off and take their authoritarianism elsewhere!

Papercup says:

09:10am | 26/08/09

I note that your interests include home brewing beer, skiing and playing rugby union. How would you like it if the law said you could not do these things because ‘historically’ you dont fit the criteria to do them? You’re not a brewing company, you’re not a professional skier, nor are you a wallaby. Should you be allowed to choose what you want to do to make your life happy and fulfilling but others cant? 
Maybe if we take some of your rights away you might realise whats it like to be a second class citizen in this country.

CW says:

04:39pm | 22/09/09

* Someone commented that many couples marry “simply for their advancement as a couple”.  I personally do not know any couples that have married for that reason. In fact, I know many heterosexual couples that have chosen not to be married because they do not intend to have children. They refer to each other as their “partner” and simply live together in a de-facto-relationship. My aunt has done this with her male partner of 22 years. They have taken all the neccessary measures to protect their properties, decisions regarding health or power of attorney, etc… These are also available to same-sex couples.
* I do not understand why gay couples want to confine themselves to the institution of marriage. The whole purpose of the gay rights movement was to be able to have sex with whoever you wanted whenever you wanted. Given the common promiscuous lifestyle of gays (and i have seen it in action because my roommate was gay and so is another aunt of mine) do we honestly believe that gay couples are all of a sudden going to shack up with one partner, marry them, and live by the traditional monogamous roles of marriage and childrearing? I am aware that infidelity is common among heterosexual couples, but it is not as common as it is among homosexuals, especially those who are polyamorous of have “many loves”. Highlighting this point is a quote, “In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit’;”(dobson). If same-sex marriage is legalised I don’t doubt that requests for other “forms” of marriage will begin to emerge.
* Not all change is good. Look at the changes to marriage so far, the divorce revolution taking away the idea that marriage is a life-long commitment = broken homes, dissolved families; sexual revolution, taking away the idea tha tsex be confined to marriage = widespread cohabitation, stds, abortions, broken hearts; taking away the idea that having children should be confined to marriage = single parenthood, fatherless homes; the pornography revolutuion, undermining the idea that a person’s sexual desires should be directed towards his/her marriage wife/husband = broken relationships, sex crimes etc…(family reseach council). Society should work towards strengthening traditional marriage not altering the very basis of it. I tend to agree with dobson when he suggests “The homosexual agenda is not marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one.”
Research has shown that children do best when they are raised with a mother and a father. I believe that children are entitled to this. Children’s right to a mum and a dad should be observed and strengthened, before a perceived ‘right’ for same-sex couples to marry and is observed.
The institution of marriage poses great benefit for society, same-sex marriage does not. I love my aunt and her partner dearly, but I could not support them in a pursuit of ‘marriage’. As it stands, they do not desire to be “married” as a man and woman are, nor feel discriminated against that marriage is designated as being between man and a woman.

Gary says:

06:12pm | 28/09/09

I say let’s revive the law which makes buggery a criminal offence then there’s no need for this discussion - case closed

Carly Krumins says:

03:08am | 29/09/09

Well I know I didn’t go into my marriage because I wanted children. I didn’t care if we never have them. I just loved this person so much, and wanted to step up the level of commitment to them, and that was the only way I could do so, to say I’ll be there no matter what. Gay people should have that same opportunity if they wish. It’s grossly unfair that they don’t. They are human beings just like everyone else and they should have the right to make their own decisions with their relationships. Times have changed and this is now how the world is. Everyone has to stop denying it and evolve.

Mick RWC says:

03:40am | 29/09/09

Everyone of you who who argue against DP’s article are not even hitting the mark. Marriage is everything AND ability to procreate. Very good and strong argument. This definition will not change over time. It is immutable. The G&L community does not have the right to demand rights they don’t have. Unfortunately you have forgone the right to procreate; marriage is not available to you. Get over it.

Mark says:

08:43am | 29/09/09

Okay let’s get back to basics. Marriage is a term that loosely from the greek root means a union undertaken for the procurement of Children. So what none child bearing unions are is civil unions. Civil Unions are the way to recognise a commitment as a couple. That in turn gives you the entitlements and allows governments to treat you as a couple. Legalise Civil Unions and make them the lawful way to co-exist as a couple in a non childbearing relationship. These could also be for hetro sexual couples who don’t intend to have childeren and in that manner elevate the view of civil unions. Tax benefits and shared responsibilities could then be spread amongst that couple and of course the reason that government are keen on Gay marriage taxes and responsibilities also levied against those couples. Bring on Civil Unions forget Gay marriage.

David D says:

08:43am | 29/09/09

Hooray for Christians and their constant imposition of their moral values over other people’s civil rights.

Call it whatever you want, but you are bigots, and will be judged as such once the wheel of time turns just a little bit further.

What right do you have to deny two people who love each other the opportunity to declare to all and sundry that they intend to stand as a pair and not alone? What difference does it make to you personally if two people who have zero impact on your life get to call themselves married, and gain all the governmental and societal benefits that the term implies nowadays?

None.

You’re just a bunch of selfish bastards exercising what’s left of your sad ideology over the rest of us.

Perhaps we should go back to the original definition of marriage where it was a goods transfer between two men and the woman was merely part of the sale? It’s traditional, it’s even in the bible. Or did I miss the little asterisked footnote suggesting that we conveniently ignore this in 2000 years if it becomes inconvenient to a believer’s argument?

Give it a rest and get with the times.

Bec says:

10:05am | 29/09/09

Does it follow that if a man and a woman want to get married but agree beforehand that they have no intention of having children, they shouldn’t be allowed to get married?  Or to take it a step further, say beforehand both of them know that they can’t have children, that relationship can’t “produce children. Children may be involved but they haven’t been produced as a result of the sexual relationship between the couple.”  Is their relationship incapable of being a real marriage?

You’re getting yourself into dangerous territory suggesting that to be married must involve an ability to “produce children”.  And the fact that marriage has been an institution “defined by history” as between a man and a woman says nothing.  Times change, attitudes evolve, so can institutions.

Bryce says:

10:19am | 29/09/09

I think this writer fails in his attempt to express his view because he’s trying to be politically correct in order to get his point across. 

Personally, I’m tired of the gay bullies and the heterosexual pseudo politically correct generation out there that want to impose the acceptance of anything and everything they see fit onto society,  like a bunch of spoilt children. 

Homosexuals should stop imposing their views and lifestyle on the world. This is the real push behind the gay marriage debate. . . . I’m tired of it.  If gays are so happy living as they are, then why the need for the whole comotion ??  You know when people are at peace with themselves, they dont seek / need recognition from anyone.

Whats the difference and great need in becoming a married gay rather than being in a gay live in relationship ? I don’t understand.

As for this get with the times argument…where does it stop ?  Lets lower the legal age for alcohol consumption / smoking / having sex and allow the use of drugs freely…...why not? It’s so common these days and cool and fun and fulfilling for those that do it.  Lets make it legal and be done with it. 

All citizens should respect the laws of the land, and at the very least respect the foundations on which they were created.

Robert says:

10:49am | 29/09/09

Marriage in the first place is a big waste of time and money.  What does marriage give you a license to do that you couldn’t do anyway?  One thing pay for your divorce!!!!  This question really lacks any creditbility, come on people does not being married have anything to do with not have children….some parents just shouldn’t be parents and they are married.  Some single mothers are not married and they are the best parents.  So what does marriage really do for you…....it just costs you money…..go on a romantic holiday instead…..much more fun.

DEBORAH says:

12:06pm | 29/09/09

Has anyone considered the fact, that even though a gay couple can’t produce children together, doesn’t mean that they cannot raise children together.  I know at least one case myself where a lesbian couple raised a child together, as one was partly bi-sexual, and deliberately set out to conceive with a man, so that her and her female companion could have a family.

But, I don’t think it’s anyone’s place to say who can and who can’t marry. 

Times have changed.  It’s time for others to stop dictating how the rest of society should live their lives.

Mick RWC says:

01:10pm | 29/09/09

David D, you speak hypocrisy & foolishness. Your bigoted words betray your own intolerance and anger.

First you don’t have civil rights to marriage. If two people want to make a commitment of some sort, you are free, but not in marriage if you are G&L. Your understanding of marriage is very limited; it is not merely a way to gain government and social benefits. It is a blood covenant. Only a man & a virgin woman can naturally ratify a blood covenant (issue of blood when hymen is broken for first time.) G&L simply cannot do it naturally any more than they can naturally procreate.

Your angry words further betray your ignorance of the Christian faith. God came from heaven to earth in the form of a man to set people free from binding mindsets like homosexuality. There is healing available from a broken heart, a wounded soul and a plaguing mindset. Marriage is not the answer. It really shows the desire to function naturally, which is available to you if you were willing to accept it.

Geri says:

02:08pm | 29/09/09

Either way, a gay marriage is not recognised by God.

David D says:

02:15pm | 29/09/09

Mick RWC,

Thanks for your reply, it’s given me the best laugh I’ve had all day.

At least you acknowledge that people’s civil rights are being impinged, so good on you for taking the first step towards enlightenment.

/Hetero.
//Married.

Claire says:

02:59pm | 29/09/09

HIstorically, marriage was NOT for the purpose of producing children, but rather for producing a legitimate heir. Hence many of those outside of the propertied classes didn’t bother with marriage. Marriage did not occur out of anything as altruistic as “the provison of future society,” but was instead a means of achieving one’s own dynastic goals.

Tobs says:

03:41pm | 29/09/09

Bryce,  do you not see the contradiction and hypocrisy of what you are saying?  You say that people asking to be recognised as a couple in the eyes of the law are “imposing their views and lifestyle on the world”?  What do you think you and others like you are doing, if not imposing YOUR views on the world?  What gives you more right than anyone else to do that?  And, incidentally, what does the consented commitment of two adults have to do with the legal age of consuming alochol, drugs or smoking?

And Geri, what is the purpose of your statement?  Did God tell you this personally, or is that God imposing his/her/its views on the world through you?  Nobody’s asking to be recognised by God, anyway.  Or are you now saying that anybody who was not married in a church by a priest is not really married, and has no right to be?

Voxpop says:

08:00pm | 29/09/09

CW - I find your rant offensive in the extreme and I’m hetero.  But we all know that even those trying to post with moderation here feel the same way so thanks for that insight.

Gibbot says:

10:05pm | 29/09/09

@Tobs

“Nobody’s asking to be recognised by God, anyway.

Qualifier: Nobody sane.

The insane honestly believe sexual orientation to be a conscious decision to stray from the ‘righteous’ path. It’s about time we stopped pandering to these idiots and started naming them for what they are. What terrifies me is not the thought of homosexual couples raising children. It is that society continues to protect and nurture delusion.

Harley says:

07:33am | 30/09/09

“I am a married father. If I were to apply for a single mothers pension I would not receive it, and rightly so. I would not have been discriminated against, I just didn’t meet the definition.”
That’s right , if you are married you are not single and vice versa. Thanks for stating the obvious. BTW if you want to become single you can. The means is called no fault divorce.

Lets get to the core weaknesses of the mantra that marriage is the union of one man one woman.
Throughout history same sex partnerships have existed see Brendan of Woolongong’s post for one example.
Marriage is commonly between one man and one woman but there are numerous religions and cultures where polygamy and polyandry have been common norms. Child marriage has also been common.
Numerous jurisdictions around the world recognize same sex marriages.
Intersex people are assigned an artificial gender by the state, many of these intersex people marry.
Religious observance is not a requirement to marry in any state or territory in Australia.
My point? Marriage is a social construct that varies through time and space. There is no one model of marriage that has applied across all cultures and all time.
The argument needs to move on to the desirability or otherwise of the current construct of marriage, but let’s not fall back on the furphy of the ‘Naturalness’ of one model over another.

Mick RWC says:

01:11pm | 30/09/09

Bec, your argument is poor and weak. No it should not follow that if a man & a woman decide before hand that if they don’t want to have children then they should not be allowed to be married. You are twisting the understanding of marriage just like you have twisted the understanding of natural sexual relations. It sounds like you have an ulterior motive.

It astounds and amazes me that people with a twisted view on sexual relations cannot accept the simplicity of marriage; between a man & woman, one of the defining characteristics being a natural ability to procreate and raise a family. What is so difficult with this. You twist things to make a straw man that you then defeat with twisted logic.

Get healed.

timbo says:

02:23pm | 30/09/09

My personal view on marriage is that, at its core, it’s just a public declaration that two people are committing to each other. Weather the “ceremony” that goes on around it is religious, civil, or just a informal gathering of friends and family - it’s JUST a “ceremony” where two people stand up and say “we are together til the end”. Over the centuries, we’ve invented a whole heap of religious, social, and now political, cr@p around this one simple thing. Why not cut through all that and just get back to that one simple idea. Sigh…..like the powers-that-be would ever let THAT happen

The Gov. should drop the distinction of “married”, “defacto”, “same-sex”, “civil union”, etc and put them all into one group called “Couples” or “Partners” or something, and then make the laws apply to that one grouping equally. You’d think that would make their job easier to manage…

Nick says:

02:40pm | 30/09/09

Dear Tom,

Thanks for your insight into this incredible dilemma. As a gay man, I was unsure where I stood, but at least I now know what I should think.
Seeing that we can’t get married, can you do me a favour and call Centrelink and tell them that our relationships don’t mean anything and we can no longer be assessed as a defacto couple.
I’m sure that they will understand with your logic and return logic to the world.
By the way, I hope your children (or grand children) have some additional outside exposure to the world, other than your writing. It would be a shame for them to take their own life if ever they were to question their sexuality and feel like “they didn’t belong”. Suicide is a real problem, caused by real stigma which is a real result of articles like this doing nothing but to breed intollerance within the community. If you had said “black people shouldn’t be married…” you would have been dismissed from your job. But it’s ok, gay people are still an approved target.
Have a nice life.

Jack says:

09:14pm | 30/09/09

Tom, your article is embarrassing. I hope you read all these comments and have a think about what you are saying.

Mick RWC says:

10:56pm | 30/09/09

Dear Nick,

You are mistaken for believing that gay men commit suicide because of the stigma of being ostracized. Broad acceptance of sexual dysfunction will not heal a broken heart or wounded soul. Broadly G&L hurt due to betrayal of unconditional love in their lives. This will always hurt and can unfortunately lead to violent ends. The solution is healing hurts and not nurturing hurts. Marriage for G&L is the wrong route!! (Yes, I find that humorous.) Pursuing forgiveness and seeking healing of the heart, mind & soul is the functional way forward.

Melissah says:

12:57am | 01/10/09

Pro gay marriage commenters: didn’t you all hear? If we let homos get married, they’ll fuse into a superhomo and spread the gay to our children.

Ridiculous.

While I believe that religious institutions have the right to say “no” to gay marriage (some religions have very strong opinions on homosexual relationships), I don’t believe that the government has that right. Let the poor sods marry who they want to marry.

Oh, and FYI: the feminist in me is pretty pissed that you suggested that people get married to have children. This reads that a woman is not worth of the institution of marriage unless she can perform her duties as Wife and Mother (read: OBJECT!). What a ridiculous notion to perpetuate.

Gibbot says:

10:05am | 01/10/09

Mick RWS

Your belief in sky fairies is an aberration. It is a lifestyle choice that sentences you to a meaningless life devoid of reason. You must seek to dispel delusion, not nurture delusion. Embracing reality is the only way forward. It is right that you be ostracized for your refusal to do so. The development of logic, humanity and empathy is your only chance to overcome the festering illness in your brain.

I wish you all the best on your journey out of darkness.

Carl Palmer says:

11:54am | 01/10/09

Tom well written - makes perfect sense to me. The union between Man and Women is different to a union between man and man so therefore call it something different. There are many reasons why people marry but I would have thought that for the majority – having children was one - was for me and my wife and our neighbours and friends. It’s not the only one but an important one.

Awesomeness says:

01:23pm | 01/10/09

I don’t get it, are married people concerned that thier marriage will be less “valid” if gay’s are allowed to marry as well. What is the real problem, I thought as a country this issue should have been put to rest about 20 years ago, have a freakin referendum on it, when the country decides then everyone should just get over it.

Annh says:

01:39pm | 01/10/09

I’ve never understood why G&Ls; want a state sanctioned marriage.  If you want to get married, do it.  Find yourself a celebrant, a location, make a lifelong commitment to each other and call yourselves married.  Voila. 
As whether G&L relationships are equal to heterosexual ones, well they’re not.  The chances of conceiving a child together naturally are infinitely higher for heterosexual couples.  Sue God, mother nature, Gaia, whoever.

Tim says:

02:46pm | 01/10/09

I have no idea how bigoted rants such as Gibbot’s above get published on this site.
You are one sick fellow Gibbot.
I hope the hatred that you have for people with views different to yours lessens over time and you get the help you require.

E says:

02:56pm | 01/10/09

what a load of bollocks ...

first, marriage is about rights.
These are legal rights, they are bestowed by the crown (or the parliament in a republic).
Marriage is a religous ceremony in modern terms, and its between the couple, their priest and whatever higher being they worship.

The real question is, what is the significance of a religious ceremony in a 21century secular democracy?
Why is a 5 year marriage given more importance than a 50 year de-facto relationship?

I think that legally the concept of marriage should be replaced with a civil union, which is bestowed by the crown and is available to any couple. But is not a marriage, which shouldnt exist as a legal concept.

Any religious ceremony is between the couple, but has no legal recognition in and of itself.

That should sort the whole thing out.

Mick RWC says:

03:32pm | 01/10/09

Dear E,

Marriage is not about rights. Marriage is a blood covenant that should only be terminated by death (until death do us part.) It’s much more about responsibilities than rights. However, the blood covenant cannot be ratified naturally by G&L (issue of blood when virgin hymen is broken.) It is a natural function and is the exclusive capacity of heterosexual relations. A G&L couple can not more naturally consummate a marriage vow than they can naturally conceive children. That there is the basis of blood covenant. After this, there are still the family raising issues and moral issues, let alone the healing issues of G&L people.

Gibbot says:

04:13pm | 01/10/09

Aw Tim.. Are bigoted rants only OK when they come from Christians? My post was merely a parody of Mick RWC’s utterly contemptible bs about ‘binding mindsets’ & ‘sexual dysfunction’.

That you see nothing wrong with what he wrote, yet everything wrong with what I wrote says more about your bigotry and closed mindedness than mine. I’m not the one telling people what they can & can’t do with their lives - quite the opposite. I’m advocating equality, not because I’m homosexual (not that it’s relevant, but I’m hetro), but because it’s right.

What’s your position on this again Tim?

E says:

05:24pm | 01/10/09

Tim, hows the hatred for people with views other than yours comming? I always find raging hatred filled rants about respecting other peoples opinions hilarious

Rebecca says:

09:45pm | 01/10/09

Of course the relationship is going to be different, that’s a given; using it in the arguement is silly.

The problem is that in this day and age marriage comes with numerous legal and healthcare benefits. As you said, gay relationships are capable of being just as loving and providing as straight relationships with the exception of producing children; does this factor have the same weight as the forfeiting of the aforementioned rights? Definitely not. So basically, you’re saying they should just give gay couples marriage but with a different label for want of the ability to produce children together. It’s completely pointless when all that needs to be done is redefining marriage from “a union between a man and a woman, voluntarily entered into for life” to “a union between two persons, regardless of gender, voluntarily entered into for life”. Why bother creating a new union for the celebration of two people who want to be together when there’s already a name for it and the difference is so small?

Also, couples aren’t expected to produce children anymore, it’s just an option. The Women’s Liberation movement fought for reproductive rights and, consequentially, society’s views on having children changed. Just like gays and lesbians are fighting for their marriage rights, which will also result in society’s views changing.

Tim says:

10:50pm | 01/10/09

Ah Gibbot,
Seems you can write parody but not recognise it.
E,
I don’t discriminate, i hate all stupid people equally.

Hater says:

11:26am | 10/12/09

I never want to have children, but I want to have a long-standing commited relationship. I want to get married, but how does me not wanting to have kids equate to me not being allowed to.  And another thing, before you try and make your wife start producing children, what about all of the orphans in this world,  You don’t have to give birth to have a child, and in the respect, homosexual relationships can STILL produce humans. They raise children in a loving environment, give the children the necessary human rights like food, water, shelter and care. The whole “Gays can’t make kids” mallarcky is bull. Say to a child in Cambodia, “Would you rather stay in this crowded shelter, or have two daddies or mummies?”. Do it, or more correctly, go and tell those same abandoned children that they can never have direct parents, because only biological parents can raise biological children. That’s utter tripe, and all adopted adults (adopted children that have grown up) would say that that is unfair on people who have NO CHOICE in what happened to them in the past.

cats says:

12:52pm | 10/12/09

You, Tom Kenyon, are letting your own prejudices against gay people affect your view that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. This arguement stems from a lot of the major religions. What if i were to invent a religion that allowed gay marriage? Why can that not be allowed to happen in Australia? Yeah why don’t we stop infertile people from marrying also, or the ones that don’t want to have children. I hate people who refer to the past about everything. WE ARE LIVING FOR THE FUTURE, NOT THE PAST. Just because marriage may have been originally for a man and a woman, does not mean it cannot be changed.

Oh and for people who think its not natural, read this http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427370.800-homosexual-selection-the-power-of-samesex-liaisons.html
Homosexual behaviour happens all the time in the animal kingdom. But then again, i do believe in evolution and that humans are just animals. Can’t say the same for christians who believe god made everything exactly the way it is now, and that humans are different/better than other animals.

Radical says:

04:50pm | 10/12/09

I think that the qualifier “gay” marriage is already something that makes it something other than marriage as we currently understand it.
I am against gay marriage. And that is because after thinking about this debate I conclude that marriage if open to gays will need to be open to all sorts of arrangements…polymarriage, marriage to things other than human and so on…
That is just not a good arrangement, for taxing and other purposes.  Therefore I am against it.

Summer Glau says:

03:58am | 14/12/09

Dear Radical,

I found your argument interesting and hence I wish to make a response directly particularly at it. 

Firstly, “I think that the qualifier “gay” marriage is already something that makes it something other than marriage as we currently understand it”.

You seem to not understand the point of an adjective.  They modify a noun such that the noun still remains, but the area being referred to is not so wide in breadth as to be the entire subject matter of said noun.  Given that the point is inherently about semantics, it can be solved trivially by calling it not gay marriage but “marriage between two people of the same gender”.  The content remains, but it’s made to fit more easily within the claim of “marriage”.  By this argument, interracial marriages can be understood as not being marriage (which they once were, incidentally).  Secondly, the fact that it’s debated, or more importantly, the fact that it’s illegal is sufficient proof for the claim made (namely that it is something other than marriage as we currently understand it).  However, to accept this argument as binding is to say that because the law at the moment is that gay people can not get married, therefore it should be left that way.  This is a circular argument, as the very thing at issue is the law in question (which is then being used to prove why it should continue to exist by defenders).  Convincing arguments can not take this form, as has been recognised for thousands of years. 

Secondly, “And that is because after thinking about this debate I conclude that marriage if open to gays will need to be open to all sorts of arrangements…polymarriage, marriage to things other than human and so on…”

This argument is illogical.  Firstly, if we’re only talking about the law, then the law can be changed to simply exclude the gender requirement and include the number requirement to counter the first, and a biological requirement to counter the second if necessary.  Of course, the second is patently absurd – things other than human cannot sign a contract and cannot enter into contractual agreements (other than companies which occupy a special place).  As such, they cannot enter into marriage.  Secondly, from the logical perspective, if you think that it can lead to these things because of a chain reaction of logicity, then that same system must be able to be applied to the system as it stands.  At the current time, impotent men and barren women can marry.  They’re relationship is exactly the same in all material respects to a gay relationship, including the absence of being able to have children without the aid of another person or persons.  Yet they can marry.  Logic here would seem to dictate that gay marriage must also be acceptable, unless you try to take the route that gay relationships are somehow less worthwhile than other relationships, which is to be quite blunt and without argument (seeing as it is off-topic to my main point) patently ridiculous. 

While I’m on the topic of children, this particular argument (made in the article rather than the post, so not in reply to the post), this argument can only be maintained if you believe that capacity for both the partners in the relationship to have a single offspring with both their genetics is necessary for marriage.  Legally, this is wrong, as there is no clause in marriage requiring this.  People can get married with the express purpose of not having children, and people can have children without being married, and single people can have children.  Not only is there is no necessary relationship between the two, there isn’t even a necessary relationship between children and being in a relationship.  Secondly, as pointed out above, this should exclude the group of people who cannot have children; yet it doesn’t.  This is gotten around because of various other methods (donors or adoption).  These other options are however, closed to gay people.  So, the only reason gay children can’t have children in the same manner as some straight couples, is because it is statutorily blocked for them to.  As such, this argument is patently absurd; if the reason necessitious to the argument is itself a variable, all it does is reduce argument to that point; given that it is able to change, it cannot be relied upon as the proof.  The other method leads to logical inconsistencies.

Thirdly, “That is just not a good arrangement, for taxing and other purposes.”
So, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry because the not-so-logical conclusions of it would make taxing a bit difficult?  That argument probably needed to be a bit better thought out.  Of course, seeing as simply opening it up to gay marriage wouldn’t result in these difficulties, it isn’t a necessitious flaw.

Taylor Norval says:

11:45am | 11/06/10

I would like to make a comment on this as well I suppose. I’m 16 and was adopted by 2 gay men. I have 3 brothers and sisters who were also adopted and I have to say I have one of the most amazing families in the world. I was 8 when I was adopted.
The place I lived in before was terrible and in an extremely dangerous part of town. I shared a room with 19 other people and more came everyday abandoned by “happily married” folks who chose they wanted children then decided it was too much of a hassle.
I don’t blame nor hate my biological parents for what they did. They had a choice of what to do and in it’s own way it turned out alright. They got divorced and now both are hard working somewhere on the east coast. Both are again in relationships. I found a warm and welcoming home, an amazing family and a chance for a better educationg and future.
Hundreds of thousand of children across the country are looking for a home. A family. So why can’t others get the same chance I did?
Because of ignorant people like you who decided on something they know nothing about. They decide the fates of people they have and never will bother to get to know because of these preconseved, ‘holier then thou’ attitudes, that distroy the lives of people they’ve never bothered to stop and say hello to.

Luke says:

03:58pm | 11/06/10

A committed gay couple are different to a committed straight couple…
Give it another name…
Most gay people i know hate religion anyway… so they dont care if they are “married in the eyes of god” they just want to be “married in the eyes of the government”
So if the government gives it another name they… theoretically… should not care then should they?

JR says:

04:29pm | 11/06/10

Abolish marriage as a legal institution altogether, be done with it: complete separation of church & state.

Civil unions for any two consenting adults of age. Further to that, if you wish to get ‘married’ in your local church/mosque/synagogue/place of worship by all means go ahead, but the this is a private matter which has no business in Government or legislation.

Would be a great way of striking a blow against moral authoritarians who poison the ears of our politicians, e.g. the ACL and their desire to turn Australia into a theocracy (which they openly admit on their website).

I dream the day when government is free of the abuses by theistic religions.

Emma b says:

01:06am | 12/06/10

why do we care so much?
gay people are going to stay gay regardless and after two years they’re de-fact anyway so i dont get why they should be denied the same rights as us straight people in allowing them to marry? besides, theres a tonne of babies in adoption centres looking for good homes and good parents, and gay people can (and do) provide that.
i know of a few families where the mother or father has turned around after 20years of a ‘marriage’ and gone off with another person of the same sex. we just cant force the idea…maybe we would have more happy marriages and a lower divorse rate if more people had the option to marry and others werent presured to stick by a heterosexual agenda.
and lets not get all God on this (are you forgetting who created gay people?)

Adam says:

10:46am | 27/07/10

I find it ever so humorous that so many ‘gays’ have such a strong opinion in the matter, yet, because it is such a controversial subject. If a straight person has an opinion on the subject they are instantly branded a bigot.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. So many people argue over things that don’t even matter, yet there is so much poverty, so many uneducated people and so much crime and violence. Why don’t you all put your strong opinions on something that actually matters.

I don’t intend on getting married at all. Am I abusing an oportunity that a gay couple could have? No. Both sexes disgust me with “reasons” why and why not.

Grow up and stop being like small children. I want a lolly because he has one or I’ll cry.

Stop spreading your arguement onto the general public who really doesn’t care.

PS> Stop including any kind of statistic in any arguement, as I have and never will be part of a poll.

Benny says:

03:48pm | 06/11/10

What planet do those who oppose gay marriage live on?

Marriage was origanlly a pagan institution that had nothing to do with reproducing and American Indians performed marriage between people of the same sex for thousands of years.

As for the argument that the gay lobby are crying foul…um newsflash people millions of Australian’s supportt this and many of which punished labor at the last election and voted Green.

Equality is not about been treated the same it is about been given the same opptununity. We don’t want to be treated as if we are heterosexuals with out any respect for our differences. We want the same rights as heterosexuals.

Our agenda is equal rights and to rid this country of homophobia and sexism. We make no apologies. Equal rights NOW

DrST says:

03:44pm | 15/12/10

Tom, that was a very heartfelt article. I see a series of heartfelt assertions, groundless and without evidence and irrational, but heartfelt. Kudos to you.

JerryLR says:

01:26pm | 29/12/10

The 1st factor which is noticed concerning the Spanish Language course will be the tediousness of the lessons. The vocabulary words are given in blocks of 4 for ease of memorization, but they’re repeated continually throughout the rest of the plan. Sadly, the monotony of the plan can trigger a user to drift off throughout the course of the lesson and miss some crucial points.

Tom says:

07:24am | 04/02/11

I think being gay is against humanity. We have been created in 2 genders to understand that we are supposed to complete each other. If that was accepted for men to be together as partners, there would not be any need for 2 different sexes.
in no ways two men can complete each other. Even they can not match each other physically! According to psychologists, men and women have such characteristics that make them able to help each other and to be supportive for each other.
To finish briefly, I don’t agree with gay marriage, but other opinions are respected!

Mel says:

02:56am | 10/12/11

I am slightly homophobic despite being bisexual (much, much more intensely, sexually and frequently attracted to males). The image/idea of a man and man or woman and woman together just irk me out, and it seems really odd, off putting, out of place, and unnatural. This is why I won’t support gay marriage. I won’t battle against it and I realize that the happiness and freedom of all people is important, obviously, but I just can’t get over this. Now, why I feel this way is worth questioning, maybe it’s because I have been told it’s wrong from a young age, or maybe it’s something that we are naturally predisposed to. So the two sides of the argument are battling it out in my head, on the one hand it’s “gross” but then again we are all humans and love is love no matter what sex it is shared by and all that. I feel that Tom’s argument is stupid and I can’t be bothered articulating it further than that but I beleive other comments have basically summed it up.

Geoff says:

12:22am | 18/01/12

One only has to look to Canada where marriage equality has been legal for nearly 10 years. People aren’t marrying their dogs or goats, polygamy is not rampant and straight couples continue to marry and have kids as they have done for hundreds of years.
Society there is not collapsing. Do yourself a favour - cross the border and have a look. I think you’ll quickly realize that all your baseless arguments are just that - baseless. Good luck to you sir. Clearly, you need it.

Alex says:

08:18am | 15/05/12

I can appreciate your point of view, but like you said some man-women pairs have exactly 0 chance of having children. And marriage btw isn’t about children. It’s actually just about the two people in the marriage.