National Marriage JUST FOR US Day

Anyone wondering why it was important to show the politicians Australia wants marriage equality should watch carefully as the religious right celebrates five years tomorrow of Howard’s changing the Marriage Act to enforce their beliefs on the rest of us. They’ll be enjoying a breakfast in Parliament House, with shameless Labor and Liberal politicians happily basking in their approval. A mutual admiration session. We did your bidding, they’ll say. We “strengthened” marriage by denying it to committed couples. We “protected” marriage by keeping it from the filthy gays and lesbians. We “defended” families by making sure that those of gays and lesbians are treated as second-class by the law. We “respected” your religious beliefs by enforcing them on other citizens who don’t share them.

Via Brian Greig in Crikey:

The celebratory “National Marriage Breakfast” is the soft cuddly face of the Religious Right, who continue to insist that they are not anti-homos-xual, merely “pro-family”. Just what that means for gay couples raising children is unclear.

However, there is no question that this gathering represents the biggest anti-gay protest in the five years since the gay marriage ban was implemented. Every gay-bashing, h-mophobic hate group will be represented in one way or another.

The event has even been nick-named the “Muehlenberg Rally”, in recognition of serial homophobe Bill Muehlenberg from Victoria’s Australian Family Association being a key advocate for the event.

And guess who they’ll be welcomed by?

Ursula Stephens, parliamentary secretary for “social inclusion”.

Ursula Stephens
Inclusion through exclusion. You know it makes sense.

Welcome to Parliament House. Who needs plausible or sustainable arguments for legislated bigotry and discrimination when you’ve got the two major parties in your pockets? You convince your followers that this is the most important issue and get them to vote for us, and we’ll keep doing your bidding in this single, nasty way. You continue to ignore our utter failures in genuinely looking after the poor and desperate – the issues your Bible says Jesus Christ did actually talk about – and we’ll keep the gays down for you instead.

Marriage and Family are wonderful things – how dare these other citizens think they can share in them, too.

UPDATE: Spoke to Mary Fowler of the organising “National Civic Council” (a name which doesn’t exactly describe that they’re a religious right lobby group) who (before hanging up on me) explained that marriage is only for “fertile” people and those whose infertility is caused by NATURAL “diseases” or aging, and revealed that the following MPs will be joining Ursula in speaking at their breakfast: Guy Barnett (Liberal), Scott Morrison (Liberal) and Ron Boswell (Nationals).

First of all she spoke about their campaign being “pro-marriage” and all about advertising the benefits of marriage. It wasn’t until asked whether any of the marriage equality people who were rallying for marriage a fortnight ago would be there that she admitted that really they were the other side. They were advocating for something that clearly couldn’t be marriage (because we say so) to be called marriage, and thereby somehow were anti-marriage.

Waiting to hear back from Ursula as to what her position is, and how she defends it.

UPDATE #2: Channel Ten’s morning program has a web poll asking “do you support same sex marriage?” At the moment, the fundies appear to be winning. The sad effect of this will be to help bigoted politicians convince themselves that they represent “the majority” (they try to ignore the results of real polls).

I suggest you vote, and remind them that the majority of Australians care about marriage equality and basic human decency.

(Unfortunately the poll doesn’t require the pro-discrimination voters to click on some kind of reason for their bigotry, so we’ll never know which of the incredibly lame anti-equality reasons appeals to them. Is it the facile “governments should only recognise marriages that can produce children”? Or the moronic “it’s tradition”? Or the disturbingly authoritarian “my God says gays are evil and the government should therefore make them suffer”? Which is it?)

UPDATE #3: This is Ursula Stephen’s speech. You know things are grim for an argument if the best its supporters can come up with is to cite their own “definition” as if it proves something. By the way, I hope the bigots in attendence noted the word “current” attached to the description of the ALP’s position. I certainly did.

124 responses to “National Marriage JUST FOR US Day

  1. well if ms fowlers’ argument is about “fertility” then there is no argument since fertility has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation…anyhow we know its actually not about that at all, its just straight down the line bigotry

    the religious right is gonna have more and more sway over government policy in many areas as long a kevins’ poll percentages stay up..it’s already had a devastating effect on cultural policy since the “revolting photos” issue…he is the worst kind of right wing religious bigot himself..and he runs the country… seems to me we might keep pressure on the ALP thru the local branches, as cabinet is never gonna do anything about this while rudd holds the chair….social inclusion..a blairite concept..includes everybody as long as they agree to go to church now and again..used to be called social justice or equality, used to be called non-sexism (non-racism)..social inclusion…..means of course we can include, but not redistribute wealth, goods or services or…..

  2. I took a look around their website (they actually put ‘family’ in the url. WHAT A BUNCH OF SELF-RIGHTEOUS DICKS) and I was dry gagging by the end.

    “Volumes of research demonstrate beyond doubt the positive contribution that intact, stable marriages make to the wellbeing of children and society. And for that very reason we will refuse it to everybody who doesn’t fit into our ridiculously narrow view of a family.”

    The best thing about the internet is that bigots’ views are on full display; 20 years from now, people will look back on these organisations and think “dinosaurs.”

  3. Richard Ryan

    TOP THIS! Former PM Howard told us that the institution of marriage is for the survival of the species. His adoring relationship with George Bush could have threatened that very survival of the species as danced in tune to Bush’s war tom-toms—AMERICA the only country ever to have used weapons of mass destruction to resolve a conflict.

  4. hopefully Bruno is serving the tea

  5. Demographics are against this bunch. People will look back after same-sex marriages have been occurring for years and wonder what the fuss was all about.

    As a family lawyer, i can say that the Marriage Act is one of the few areas that still discriminate against same-sex couples. Amendments that came into effect on 1 March 2009 essentially mean that de facto couples (including same-sex couples) have their property dealt with on bascially the same critieria as ‘married’ heterosexual couples.

  6. Oh no! People who are against gay marriage are having breakfast.

    Shock horror! Worse than that they will be “enjoying” the breakfast.

  7. Just had a look at the pro-marriage website. Why do bigots always have to wrap up their arguments with nationalistic clap trap?

  8. One of the most sickening things about politicians is their willingness to suck up to special interest groups that seek division and exclusion at the expense of others perceived as *different*. No way should the government “welcome” these bigoted throwbacks into a space owned by all Australians.

    Apart from the listed speakers do we know who the pollies are attending the breakfast? Some phone calls to voice outrage strategic lobbying might be in order….

  9. Damn faggots. Give them marriage, and next they’ll be wanting the right to vote!

  10. And then they will want to indoctrinate our kids….

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5863871.ece

  11. That’s got to do with the idiotic school, not pro-gay rights activists. Nice try, though.

  12. They only support marriage for fertile couples, and if they are infertile, it has to be by disease or aging, and, if it isn’t, then, by their reasoning, people must be gay by default.

    Well. Can’t fault that logic. I’ll let all my mates with non-specific infertility know that they must be gay.

  13. and besides, how is that “indoctrination”? since after all GLBT relationships are scientifically proven to be genetic in origin. All this does is teach students who could potentially be gay/transgender/bi that there is nothing wrong with their DNA. Also, indoctrination for what? You’re making it sound like gay rights activists are training an army of children using mind control so that they can take over the world and rule it with an iron fist. Also, what do you mean, “our” kids?

    All bigotry is inherently ridiculous, I suppose.

  14. Those websites always make me feel slightly queasy. The juxtaposition of smiling couples and oppression doesn’t sit well with me, apparently.

    I was particularly disturbed by this, from the agenda for the ‘celebration’:

    PERSONAL STORIES OF FIDELITY, COURAGE, STRENGTH, AND FORGIVENESS

    Fidelity, courage strength and forgiveness are apparently limited to heterosexual couples…

  15. Stakes how is it a student “who could potentially be gay/transgender/bi” if it has been “scientifically proven to be genetic in origin”?

    “You’re making it sound like gay rights activists are training an army of children using mind control so that they can take over the world and rule it with an iron fist.”

    Same way they learn there times tables. Repetition.

  16. When you say “indoctrinated” you are of course referring to them being taught not to oppress other students and people on the basis of their sexuality.

    OMG! My kid’s freedom to be a vicious, prejudiced bigot is at stake!

    Nice attempt to take the thread off-topic, though.

  17. Turtle, since you’re our resident defender of anti-gay bigotry, can you give us your reasons why you feel the government should specify gender in the Marriage Act, thereby discriminating against gay and lesbian people? Your very best ones.

    Mary’s were pathetic.

  18. Jeremy, as I recall, Turtle’s argument is that hetro marriage is more “intrinsic” (whatever THAT means) than homo marriage (“I want to continue to oppress you because I’ve just got this feeling“ as Keri put so brilliantly). I doubt one can get more pathetic than that.

  19. Private Baldrick Tom as I recall I identified you as a whiny little wannabe suckup. I think I might have even refered to you as ‘pathetic’.

    Anyway Jeremy, real marriage is between a man and a woman. We all know this. This is how it is. It’s intrinsic. Why is gold worth more than other base metals? Well I don’t know – but it is.

  20. I really don’t understand why this issue is controversial at all. The issue of dictating which couples can marry only arises if you believe that you have the right to impose your views on others.

    Even if you don’t think homosexuality is for you, you simply don’t have the right to impose that view on anyone else. Even if a majority of people are of this view, there is no room in a pluralistic society for them to deny equality before the law to a particular group.

    There really isn’t a sane argument in favour of discriminating against people on the basis of who they love.

  21. That’s your argument, Turtle? “It just is”?

    Have you considered that the reason you can’t explain why you think the government should discriminate against gay people is that you don’t actually have a reason? That your “real marriage is between a man and a woman” is just a personal prejudice of yours you really should get over, rather than seek to impose on others?

    Look, if you have nothing more than just “it just is”, can you at least see how if someone else had nothing more than “it just is” and was seeking to have the government curtail YOUR rights on something so flimsy, that this would be unjust? Can you see that it is similarly not a good idea for governments to discriminate the gays if they’ve nothing better than that?

  22. We have dozens of “it just is” conventions in society. We abide by them because that is ‘just the way things are’.

    But anyway I have never argued against gay people getting married. I have just repeatedly said that the marriages wont be considered to be ‘real’ or to be of the same value as a hetrosexual marriage.

  23. Turtle, “it just is” is never a good enough argument for discrimination. It’s a weak argument that only stands when no-one really cares to argue against it.

    Anyway, I couldn’t care less what you think of my marriage, and I’m sure a gay person couldn’t care less what you thought of theirs. They would know, as would the vast majority of Australians, that their marriage is just as “real” as anyone else’s, and of just as much “value”, and the bigoted generation that just can’t grasp that will eventually be gone anyway.

    In the meantime, the important thing is that the government discrimination ends.

  24. Here’s a question for all you liberals out there.

    You have the choice to have a gay child or a non gay child. Which one are you going to choose?

    I know the answer. And so do you.

  25. @Turtle

    Thank heavens I got the right answer! Which did you choose? Any why?

  26. Whoops, typo. Sorry. Meant to read: And why?

  27. You have the choice to have a gay child or a non gay child. Which one are you going to choose?

    *YAWN* at the bigot playing culture war games with innocent children.

    You people have no shame do you?

  28. ‘real marriage’ – the Tony Abbott option

  29. Turtle, your question is no different to the ‘Which would you rather meet in a dark alley, a group of black teenagers or a group of white teenagers?’ chestnut. It’s a rhetorical weapon, and a bad one at that – nothing more.

  30. “playing culture war games with innocent children”

    Wont somebody think of the hypothetical children. – Appologies to H. Lovejoy.

    Anyway despite gonovelgo, riprock and confessions avoidance of the question – we all know how they would answer if they were actually being honest with themselves.

  31. Well, since my 9 year-old daughter has a gay father and a gay grandmother, it could go either way.

    If she turns out to be straight, fine; if she turns out to be gay, fine. It doesn’t bend me out of shape either way. She is what she is.

    See, Turtle, when you actually KNOW and LOVE gay people, you quickly realise they aren’t three-headed monsters; they are just as clever, funny, obnoxious and boring as the rest of us. The are ordinary human beings who happen to have a different sexual orientation.

    Oh, and you don’t have to be a “liberal” to hold that point of view. You only need to know and love a gay person.

  32. You have the choice of a bigoted child or a non-bigoted child. Which would you choose?

    You have the choice of a fundamentalist child who wants to impose its religious beliefs on others who don’t share it, or a sensible child who doesn’t. Which would you choose?

    You have the choice of a gay child or a child who’ll grow up one day into “Turtle”. Which would you choose?

    I know the answer. And so do you.

  33. LH

    “…my 9 year-old daughter has a gay father and a gay grandmother, it could go either way. If she turns out to be straight, fine; if she turns out to be gay, fine.”

    Well according to ‘Stakes’ it is already determined. According to stakes, homosexuality is “scientifically proven to be genetic in origin”.

    Good Luck.

    ___________________

    And Jeremy I think you would find that people really truly deep down would rather choose a child who was against gay marriage (the turtle option) then choose a gay child.

  34. You get that not everyone is bigoted like you, right? That, in fact, on this issue you’re quite in the minority? And moreso every day?

  35. Wont somebody think of the hypothetical children. – Appologies to H. Lovejoy.

    your question about gay/non gay children actually reads as a statement that says if YOU had a gay child you would disown him/her.

    Somebody think of the (hypothetical) children indeed. You people disgust me.

  36. Good point. Turtle, most of us are very clear in that we see gay people as equal to any other type of people – you apparently think they’re lesser beings.

    What would you do if one of your children was gay? You know you have no control over it, right?

  37. Turtle, you’re engaged in what appears to me a massive case of projection. In case it wasn’t obvious, I and (I’d wager) the other commentators on this thread have absolutely no problem with the idea of having a gay child. Yes, really – it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest.

    Are you being serious with all of this, or is it an inept attempt at trolling?

  38. Turtle, your question stopped me in my tracks – it’s so pre-2000 and I had to recalibrate my brain to such an anachronostic query (pun intended) . I can’t remember the last time l cared whether my child, my dog, my co-worker or the young woman serving my coffee was gay. It’s like having to take seriously an opinion on whether I prefer round faces or curly hair. I can’t take you seriously.

  39. Lynda Hopgood

    Turtle – at the age of 9, I have absolutely no idea what her sexual orientation is.

    But she hasn’t ask me to buy her a boiler suit and she does like things to come in pink and purple, so I suppose I should assume she’s straight, right?

    Then again, she DOES enjoy playing with cars and riding her BMX …

  40. “people really truly deep down would rather choose a child who was against gay marriage (the turtle option) then choose a gay child.”

    Wrong.

    Most normal people are more concerned that their child is healthy, smart, not physically or mentally disabled and is a decent and kind person.

    Who they are attracted should be irrelevant to parents. Children should always feel they can be honest with their parents, and that their parents will support and love them regardless.

    I pity any child of yours, to have such a disgusting bigot for a father. God help them if one of them is in the 10% of Australians who are GLTB, because you sure as hell won’t.

    What a terrible start in life…

  41. I am amazed that there is a serious dispute here.

    Look at the initial premises :

    (1) It is considered a general good for our society that two people romantically attracted to each other are allowed to make a promise to stay together, which also involves a certain level of financial commitment.

    (2) There should, for various reasons, be restriction on the two people who can enter the commitment in (1). These include :
    (a) Those who are currently married to another (as it contradicts the first commitment).
    (b) Those who are under age (as they are considered of insufficient maturity to make the commitment.
    (c) Those who are related (for policy reasons, related primarily to genetic disease concerns and also frequent unequal relationships).

    Can anyone one give a cogent reason why there should be added a (d) ‘Those who are of the same gender as their proposed partner’ apart from anti-gay prejudice?

  42. former governor-general Micheal Jeffrey was on ABC breakfast TV this morning as he’s been appointed as an “ambassador for marriage” at the breakfast with bigots. He tried in vain but failed to defend marriage discrimination, but I thought Trioli exposed his hypocrisy quite well. He looked very uncomfortable at times.

    Transcript and video not up yet, but when it is it will be here.

  43. Turtle “And Jeremy I think you would find that people really truly deep down would rather choose a child who was against gay marriage (the turtle option) then choose a gay child.”

    no fuckin’ way you bigoted dickhead, no way would I want my kids to be anything like you.

    As for your choice, I don’t really care whether my kids turn out to be gay or straight. In fact, I have a sibling who is Transgender, what’s the big deal?
    And I ain’t no small “l” liberal either numb nuts.

  44. Turtle –

    Substitute “It Just Is” with “I’m Just Prejudice” and we might get closer to the heart of your problem.

    The other issue – that you are firmly convinced you are in the majority, contrary to the myriad forms of evidence available – I find astounding.

    You are not in the majority. The majority of Australians no longer believe that having a gay son or daughter is a stigma or a “bad” thing. They accept that it “Just Is” as you put it. Personally, I’d much prefer to have a gay son or daughter than one who grows up with a belief that their choices are the only ones that are valid, or that we can discriminate against people on the basis of some nebulous, vague feeling that something “just is” lesser because they think it is.

  45. Not Allan Jones

    This is a gay hissy fit like rainbow sashes.
    Simple answer really.
    The churches should not be compelled to marry gay couples.
    If gay couples want to enter civil unions (i.e. marriages not consecrated in a church) then let them.
    Marriage is essentially a religious institution anyway as it is a sacriment. Churches don’t recognise hetro couples who are not married in a church as married in any case, so where is there an issue with gay couples.

  46. “If gay couples want to enter civil unions (i.e. marriages not consecrated in a church) then let them.”

    Mate, people all around the country get married every day according to the laws of Australia despite there not being a christian in sight.

    I love the arrogance of christians thinking that marriage belongs exclusively to them.

  47. I love people saying that marriage was always one man, one woman when Solomon had several hundred wives without god holding it against him….

  48. Marriage is essentially a religious institution anyway as it is a sacriment. Churches don’t recognise hetro couples who are not married in a church as married in any case, so where is there an issue with gay couples.

    What utter tosh!
    I have been married twice. The first was in a registry office because neither I nor my wife wanted the union to be tainted by religious twaddle. It was still a marriage.
    My second marriage took place in a church because my second wife wanted her God involved in it (and I really don’t care one way or the other any more). The fact that we had both been married before was an issue for the church, which most definitely recognised these prior marriages.
    You ought to get out more.

  49. Not Allan Jones

    Sorry Jeremy I was not claiming that Christians own marriage, however the modern idea of a marriage in this country does spring from the sacrimantal idea of marriage.
    I was making the point that churches (especially the RCC) don’t really recognise non-church marriages.
    There’s simply no escaping that.
    I’m all in favour of civil union between gay people, and I don’t think you’re suggesting that the churches should consecrate unions between same sex couples. Thuugh to be honest I have not read enough of your posting on the issue to have confidence in thinking that. But I’d hope you weren’t
    I’m for the seperation of the church and the state and in my view the thinking of the churches (which I share) on gay marriage, should have no baring on the states actions regarding those unions.
    The church has no right to claim any authority, nor to influence any authority on issues that it does not recognise in the first place.

    Sorry you misunderstood. Mate.

  50. The anti- same sex marriage brigade rely on the tradtional man – woman thing, but as this link shows, same sex marriages were performed by the church:
    http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/05/same-sex-marriage-in-christian-history.html

  51. Not Allan Jones

    “I love people saying that marriage was always one man, one woman when Solomon had several hundred wives without god holding it against him…….”
    Take that up with the Jews.
    The Christian churches actually do have an issue with it.

  52. Returned Man

    I don’t care if they’re gay or straight.

    As long as they don’t turn out like Turtle.

  53. NAJ – I don’t care what the churches do. But it is wrong to say that “Marriage is essentially a religious institution anyway”.

    Not in this country it isn’t. Which is why there’s a government act devoted to regulating it.

  54. Marriage is essentially a religious institution anyway as it is a sacriment” – NAJ

    What rock have you been living under for the last 100 years?

    And no one is forcing churches to marry anyone.

  55. Not Allan Jones

    I have read up on Bacchus and Serge.
    I can’t find any evidence of their homosexuality save the suggestion that “they must have been”. I’m not too sure why there is such a confusion between close relationships between men and homosexuality. Certainly there has been the idea for centuries that same sex unions, especially between men, which are not sexual in nature, should be celebrated. It is a folkloric native American tradition for young men who are not brothers to enter a “blood brother” pact where they formalised their “love” (hard for a bloke to say to another bloke) for one another with the swapping of bodily fluids (bet gay guys don’t do that too often in the modern age).
    Unfortunately in the modern age, we have the unhappy knack of seeing all intimacy as sexual and for some reason feel that any truely close relationship between people must have a sexual nature. We are hence suspicious of older adult men who have a fondness for a child, any man and woman who share a meal, and 2 single men or women who live in the same house. “Oh they must be poofs or dykes or peadoes ……!!!!!”

    I accept that it can’t be avoided, but there are some very close relationships between same sex people which are not sexual and therefore not Gay. In her youth the church clearly held the view that these relationships could be celebrated.
    In modern times we view a 6th century practice with a 2st century attidude. Usually we get that wrong in my experience.

  56. None of which has anything to do with the topic, which is the government continuing to enshrine discrimination on the grounds of gender and sexual orientation in the Marriage Act.

  57. Not Allan Jones // 13 August, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    “I love people saying that marriage was always one man, one woman when Solomon had several hundred wives without god holding it against him…….”
    Take that up with the Jews.
    The Christian churches actually do have an issue with it.

    Really? Can you point me to the New Testament passage where Solomon is criticised?

    And if the modern marriage law was truly intended to reflect biblical intent, then that stuffy age of consent stuff would certainly be done away with.

    And most people don’t really care whether a particular church decided to marry a particular couple. The (secular) government of Australia has a Marriage Act, which covers unions between romantic partners who wish to make a solemn vow to each other. Why should this not include couples of the same gender? Religious arguments has NO force in this respect. Our government has secular force and is not seeking to make orders regarding how faiths conduct marriage services.

  58. Not Allan Jones

    “I don’t care what the churches do.”

    Jeremy I might take you up on that.
    Your opening par here suggests that you actually object to the religious right celebrating five years tomorrow of Howard’s changing the Marriage Act.

    I might be reading mire into it, bt i don’t think you like the idea that the churches are able to influence the state. I agree with you, but don’t say you don’t care.

    And if you don’t care then why include them in your polemic?
    Surely your issue is with policy makers and not with the churches.
    Churches don’t make the law any more than scientists make laws re AGW.

  59. I’ll clarify that – I meant I don’t care what they do so long as it isn’t imposed on others.

    I *do* care about them corrupting the political process and using such power as they still have in society to bully politicians into taking other people’s rights away.

    They shouldn’t have that sort of power in the first place, of course, but since they do, I object to them abusing it.

  60. Not Allan Jones

    “Can you point me to the New Testament passage where Solomon is criticised?”

    Well actually I can’t.
    I’m not suggesting that the church thinks Soloman was doing anything wrong, just that the church recognises that Christ wanted us to have a different attitude.
    I might ask you to point me to the New Testament passage where it says Solomon had several hundred wives without god holding it against him?

  61. Not Allan Jones

    How are they different to any other lobby group.
    Like – Oh I don’t know just for making a point – the GREENS.

  62. Sorry, the Greens are trying to take someone’s basic human rights away?

    Also, the Greens are a political party standing for election, not a group of people hiding behind deliberately obtuse names like the “National Civic Council”.

    To be fair, they can say what they like – but I can respond by pointing out how dickheadish and illogical it is. Which it is. They’re demanding their religious beliefs be imposed on other people – in fact used to take people’s basic rights away. They are demanding discrimination at one of the most basic levels, against other people.

    Ultimately it’s down to the politicians to wake up and respond to what the majority of Australians want – but in the meantime, I will continue to highlight the sheer bastardry of the people advocating for the discrimination to continue.

  63. Natural infertility, eh? I’m a lesbian who is infertile. Can I marry my girlfriend now?

  64. Not Allan Jones

    Sorry didn’t mean to send that without saying…

    I have no objection to the greens love of the forest and the environment. I don’t share it though. Certainly not to the extent that I would restrict peoples freedom of movement or their rights to have as many kids as they like or own as many cars or use electric hot water rather than solar etc etc etc.
    If you wanna wear calico and eat mung beans then by all means do it, but don’t lobby government to make my steak cost more because the cow it came from farted 300 litres of methane a day and took up forest land.

    When all is said and done though aren’t greens corrupting the political process and using such power as they currently have in society to bully politicians into taking other people’s rights away??????

  65. From a commenter at the Channel 10 forum, a nice retort to the main idiotic arguments against marriage equality:

    1. Being gay is not natural. Real Aussies always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning etc.

    2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

    3.Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

    4. Straight marriage has been around a long time, it is an institution and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal right?

    5. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

    6. Gay culture is a new fad created by the liberal media to undermine long-standing traditions. We know this is true because gay sex did not exist in ancient Greece and Rome.

    7. Conservatives know best how to create strong families. That is why it is not true that in America the most conservative states Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birthrates, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest. This is a myth spread by the liberal media.

    8. Marriage is a religious institution, defined by churches. This is why atheists do not marry. Christians also never get a divorce.

    9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why our society has no single parents.

    10. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in Australia.

    11. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

    12. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

    And that’s that.

  66. Not Allan Jones

    Marriage is a basic human right?

  67. How are they different to any other lobby group.
    Like – Oh I don’t know just for making a point – the GREENS

    the GREENS are in favour of marriage equality, whereas the churches are not.

  68. There are numerous references in the NT to the ‘wisdom of Solomon’ (Mat 12.42, Luke 11.31). There are no references to Solomon being a sinner for marrying multiple times.

    Not Allan Jones – I have asked a comparatively simple question in my post above (with the premises 1-2 and the exceptions a-c). Again, please tell me why a secular government should include a further exception stating that people may not marry another person of the same gender.

  69. NAJ – no, we’re not saying that parties can’t govern. Every law is not a blow against freedom.

    But a Marriage Act that denies the right to people based purely on their gender, is.

    And I’d call the right not to be discriminated against based on your sexual orientation a human right, yes.

  70. Not Allan Jones

    I assume that if someones sexual orientation were to be paedophilia that you would indeed accept being discriminated against based on your sexual orientation as legit.

    Since freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and since lobbying government and using power to influence policy is also a fundamental human right I feel that you actually do like to pick and choose who gets to exercize those human rights.

    I see your point though and we’re in fierce agreement.

  71. Not Allan Jones

    Murf
    Solomon isn’t a sinner for marrying multiple times. Hence no reference.

    And
    Please tell me where I said a secular government should include a further exception stating that people may not marry another person of the same gender.

    I agree that they should be allowed to marry n civil ceremony.

    My point is that the churches should not be forced to marry Gay couples and they might be forced to if the law is changed.

  72. <i."I assume that if someones sexual orientation were to be paedophilia that you would indeed accept being discriminated against based on your sexual orientation as legit."

    That’s not an “orientation”, it’s a crime because it involves abusing other people. Sex without consent.

    “I feel that you actually do like to pick and choose who gets to exercize those human rights.”

    My main problem with the fundies is that their argument is stupid and nasty, and is a depressing distraction from what Jesus Christ did, in their Bible, actually talked about. And that what they want is to impose their religious beliefs on people who don’t share them, without thinking what that would mean if it happened the other way around.

    The biggest problem is politicians who forget we have separation of church and state and insist discrimination’s okay if the religious traditions of certain voters in marginal seats would rather it continue.

  73. “I agree that they should be allowed to marry n civil ceremony.”

    Furious agreement! Hurrah.

    “My point is that the churches should not be forced to marry Gay couples and they might be forced to if the law is changed.”

    Are they forced to marry muslim couples now?

  74. Not Allan Jones

    Its a crime (as was homosexuality once) because it involves abusing other people. Agreed. However would you allow a rockspider to loby for that law (as was homosexuality once)to be repeeled?
    I’m being a prick I know, and disingenuous in the extreme, but its only a shade of paint. I could find people who would argue that the laws against paedophilia are wrong.

    Some people are as offended by homosexuality as you are by paedophilia. They have as much right as you to make that point to government and government have the duty to listen to them. Coz like it or not they are citizens just like us.

  75. NAJ

    The government have a duty to listen to everyone. They are then expected to make laws based on the wishes of the majority of people, tempered by the need to safeguard the minority’s rights.

    The protection of the rights of minors leads to laws against sexual intercourse with minors (and also the will of the majority).

    There are no rights being infringed by the marriage laws including same-sex couples. In fact, rights to equality are being infringed right now by them being excluded. Further, there is not a significant majority opposed to these laws. Further still, the people seriously opposed to these laws oppose it for reasons of prejudice, either admitted or submerged.

    You have admitted that you consent to same-sexual joining in what you describe as ‘civil ceremonies’. Does that mean that your only objection is same-sex couples being ‘married’? Is this whole debate merely over the use of that word?

  76. “Its a crime (as was homosexuality once) because it involves abusing other people.”

    Homosexuality never involved abusing other people – at least, no more than heterosexuality. Abusing people without their consent is rape.

    “However would you allow a rockspider to loby for that law (as was homosexuality once)to be repeeled?”

    They’re going to be shot down very quickly over the fact that a child can’t possibly consent.

    “Some people are as offended by homosexuality as you are by paedophilia. “

    Based on what? Who’s being abused? I’m not “offended” by paedophilia, but I am persuaded by logic that children can’t consent and that therefore sex with them is not something society should accept.

    The difference is that opposing paedophilia is about protecting its victims – the children. Opposing homosexuality is not.

  77. NAJ – I think there are two distinct issues here – whether we should allow people to inflict their religious views on others at the expense of basic human rights, and whether parliamentarians who are supposedly representing the people in a secular parliament should be party to, or in fact, be host of a special interests group bent on discrimination.

    Of course everyone has a right to their own opinion. That opinion might even be that the human rights of people should be infringed for the intangible benefit of others. They can demonstrate, hold tea-parties and lobby until they are blue in the face, and I will not argue that they are not within their rights to do so.

    But there is no fucking WAY those opinions should find their way into law. Discrimination in any form should not be tolerated, and those who espouse it should not be courted actively by politicians looking for cheap votes.

    THAT is the issue at hand with this group. They are entitled to hold rallies as anyone else is. The fact that they are embraced and welcomed by the lawmakers of this country – people who are supposed to listen to the majority of this country – is not acceptable.

  78. I could find people who would argue that the laws against paedophilia are wrong.

    I’d hazard a guess you won’t find them here.

    Pedophilia is a crime because it involves sex with minors who can’t give consent. A man who has sex with a woman without her consent is also committing a crime, even though it’s heterosexual act.

    Why do you people always have to obfuscate in order to defend the indefensible? Why bother, when you know as well as anyone else here that there is no logical argument against same sex marriage?

  79. “….you know as well as anyone else here that there is no logical argument against same sex marriage?”

    And how about gay polygamous marriages. That’s what Australia needs next. No logical reason against it is there confessions?

  80. Turtle, please state your logical reason why gays should not be allowed to marry. Otherwise the answer to your red herring about gay polygamous marriages is that they are are just not right. Particularly for your gay child.
    Not Allan seems to be confused. As far as I know we allow pedophiles to marry (no discrimination there).

  81. turtle, the gay and lesbian community are not asking for the right to marry multiple partners, just the same rights as heterosexual couples, as you well know.

  82. Oh and please spare me the next slippery slope rebuttal common amongst you people: OMG!!1! NEXT IT’LL BE MARRIAGE TO ANIMALS??!!

  83. Jesus Christ, Turtle, you really are a moron. For a start, gay rights activists want to define marriage as love between two people. An bond of enduring love between two people that is recognised by the state. There are compelling reasons for stating that in a polygamous relationship, there would not be true love involved. What reasons are there for that in a same-sex relationship?

    … Unless, of course, you believe that gays are somehow second-class, that their love is inferior to heterosexual love.

    You are aware that homophobia is in many ways a recent phenomenon? Many of the historical Popes took male lovers- on likely case being the relationship between Michelangelo and Pope Julius II, who comissioned a lot of his works (such as the Sistene Chapel)- one of the reasons being that they considered women to be of the devil, so loving only men was the logical conclusion. The only reason it was defined as between a man and a woman is that the point was the union of families to create new children. In fact, the idea of marrying for love was considered to be laughable.

    NAJ- would you then support a law that established civil marriages amongst two people who both consent to it and are above the legal age, and allows religious organisations to define marriage as they wish and acknowledges those marriages? Because that’s the law I personally would suggest.

  84. “There are compelling reasons for stating that in a polygamous relationship, there would not be true love involved.”

    Tell that to all the people throughout the world in polygamous marriages. Stakes you are a biggot!

  85. Turtle: polygamous marriages are NOT legal in Australia, so it is irrelevent whether they exist in other countries or religions. The debate here is about the denial of marriage rights to same sex couples, something that is not denied heterosexual couples. Do you understand how this isn’t about polygamy?

  86. Maybe we should play along with Turtle’s herring for the moment. Turtle, can you give us logical, rational reasons as to why polygamous marriage shouldn’t exist. And no, “it’s less intrinsic than hetro marriage simply it is” doesn’t count as a reason.

  87. “And no, “it’s less intrinsic than hetro marriage simply it is” doesn’t count as a reason.”

    You PBT don’t decide what is and what isn’t a reason. If it was up to you, you would have first cousins marrying like your mum and dad did.

  88. People keep saying the bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Would someone please give this poor unbeliever an indication of where the bible says this? Please?

  89. If it was up to you, you would have first cousins marrying like your mum and dad did.

    Typical response from an ignorant bigot with nothing to contribute to this debate apart from rude, personal attacks.

    personally I’d prefer not to entertain the likes of turtle by inviting them to expand upon their LOOK OVER THERE idiocies, because it detracts from the legitimacy of arguing the case for removing very real discrimination against same sex couples.

    The turtles of the world prefer to pretend that this debate is about a slippery slope to HELL where polygamy and marrying rock lobsters are legally permissible, when in actual fact the debate is about giving the same marriage rights to same sex couples that we presently enjoy.

  90. @zoot: the bible is just another red herring used by bigots to stop debate about this issue, as if the bible has any legal authority over us in our secular system of governance.

  91. @confessions: my point is that a lot of these people have never actually read the bible.
    If marriage is defined as between a man and a woman then King David was a sinner beyond redemption and I suspect Solomon was probably a bit iffy (it’s been a while since I dipped into the good book).

  92. Ah yes, Google is your friend. Apologies for the length (Turtle and NAJ can just scroll past it)
    Apparently a rough summing up of the bible’s definition of marriage is one man, and as many women as he can afford.

    Genesis 4:19
    And Lamech took unto him two wives.

    Genesis 16:1-4
    Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai … gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.

    Genesis 25:6
    But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had….

    Genesis 26:34
    Esau … took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

    Genesis 31:17
    Then Jacob rose up, and set … his wives upon camels.

    Exodus 21:10
    If he take him another wife….

    Deuteronomy 21:15
    If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated….

    Judges 8:30
    And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

    1 Samuel 1:1-2
    Elkanah … had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.

    2 Samuel 12:7-8
    Thus saith the LORD God of Israel … I gave thee … thy master’s wives….

    1 Kings 11:2-3
    Solomon … had seven hundred wives … and three hundred concubines.

    1 Chronicles 4:5
    And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

    2 Chronicles 11:21
    Rehoboam … took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.

    2 Chronicles 13:21
    But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives….

    2 Chronicles 24:3
    Jehoiada took for him two wives….

    Mt.25:1
    Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
    Source(s):
    Most of the Old Testament

  93. “I took a look around their website (they actually put ‘family’ in the url. WHAT A BUNCH OF SELF-RIGHTEOUS DICKS) and I was dry gagging by the end.”

    Typical response from an ignorant bigot with nothing to contribute to this debate apart from rude, personal attacks.

  94. “And how about gay polygamous marriages. That’s what Australia needs next. No logical reason against it is there confessions?”

    There is – it breaks consent. How do you deal with the situation where, say, one person wants to add a third and the other doesn’t. Or how do you divide property when one person leaves?

    I haven’t heard any sensible proposals for how it could work. Have you?

    There are lots of sensible proposals as to how gay marriage would work, in comparison. (Exactly the same as straight marriage.)

  95. Yes, I was agreeing with you zoot – albeit rather clumsily perhaps.

    I also can’t stand that these people trot out “the bible says” as the definitative debate-curtailing stifle as their answer every time the subject of same sex marriage comes up. You could run a drinking game every time jeremy posts about marriage equality, it’s so predictable!

    I’d bet money the majority of these people can’t quote the relevent text to support their argument, as otherwise I’d be able to quote it chapter and verse for having seen it cited so often all the times i’ve seen marriage equality debated on blogs. I can’t btw.

  96. Turtle: you declared PTB imbred which is quite different from declaring web content vomitous.

  97. Turtle-at least my parents aren’t brother and sister.

    **boom tish**

    And btw Turtle, these ‘pro-family’ groups are being self-righteous in that they claim to represent families whilst simultaneously deminising certain families (if it isn’t self-righteousness, than it’s definitely purile bigotry).

    And on a final note, in your two posts since my last, you still haven’t addressed my point on polygamous marriage.

  98. “WHAT A BUNCH OF SELF-RIGHTEOUS DICKS”

    Yeah it’s obvious he is reffering to the content.

  99. Turtle: the people who espouse those views ARE self-righteous. Much like you, who is yet to put forward a rational, logical argument against same sex marriage other than that it offends you, and you aren’t even big enough to admit that much.

    In any case, this is simply more obfuscation and deflection on your part. You’ve just been handed your arse to you on a plate over the bible by zoot, and in respect to alarmist counter arguments about polygamy by me and jeremy. Please stop.

  100. “You’ve just been handed your arse to you on a plate over the bible by zoot”

    I have NEVER made any comment claiming that gay marriage was wrong because of the bible or because of some peoples religious beliefs.

    I thought you might be a worthy opponent but it seems that you are just a goose who makes up stuff.

  101. Turtle: all your arguments on this thread against gay marriage bear the hallmarks of religious nutters: “real marriage between a man and a woman”, “it just is”, “indoctrination”, “polygamy”.

    It is up to you to separate yourself from these people, not defending them as you have done @10pm tonight, and at 7.37pm last night. Otherwise I will continue to associate you with the bible bashing ignorants.

    And where is your rational, logical argument against same sex marriage?

  102. I thought you might be a worthy opponent

    Oh and please don’t equate yourself with me, even if it is in terms of opposing views: it gives me no pleasure to have to step down into the gutter in order to put paid to your backwards, bigotted rhetoric about a section of our population that is routinely debased in public dialogue, and discriminated against institutionally in law and public policy.

  103. Not Allan Jones

    Jeremy
    I think if push came to shove that the churches would be forced to marry Muslim couples, but it will never be tested because no Muslim couple would take them to court over the issue.
    I do believe however that a uniting church gay couple denied their “now legal” union (were the law changed) in a uniting church might have a young up and coming church haten baro like yourself argue their case in court and they might just win. Despite their poor choice of silk. This represents a very big challenge to the churches. And the mosques as well.
    I didn’t say homosexuality involved abuse. I said it was a crime.
    I find it interesting that you can still spot a prejudice in the right, though submerged, while being unable to see one on the left in a pink frock on a float waving a feather boa.
    I don’t “consent” to anything Jeremy. I do however agree with it as a proposition.
    Marriage is not, in my mind, merely a civil institution. It is also a religious sacrament, no matter how much you object to that notion. The civil part of the matter is simply to allow for the division of assets when the marriage ends. It’s a legal document and nothing more. If gay people wish to become subject to that document then they should be allowed to. Christ why should we hetros have to endure all the pain and agony of relationships set in legal stone. Why should you lawyers miss out on a whole section of the relationship and probate market just because those folks happen to have the same chromosomes.
    Why all the fuss anyway?
    There are hundreds of thousands of couples in Australia who co-habit without being married. I believe you may be in such a relationship with Keri.
    Why not be gay and do the same?
    If you need to express the union in a public forum then get a celebrant, a reception centre, a barrel and some alternating beef and chicken, bung on a frock or a tux and get on with it.
    I’m extremely saddened to hear that paedophilia does not offend you. Clearly you have no kids.
    Keri
    If you wish to debate then please keep a civil tongue and I’ll happily chat.

    When you say that the majority rules and therefore gay marriage is in then I say lets see a show of hands on capital punishment.
    Now be quiet.

  104. Not Allan Jones

    Zoot you poor bigot.
    All old testament mate save the last whish also might say “bridegrooms”.

    The churches in believe in one man one woman mate. Don’t get you knickers in knots about what the Jews said before the christian churches came into being. One man-one woman.

  105. “might have a young up and coming church haten baro like yourself argue their case in court and they might just win. Despite their poor choice of silk.”

    “I’m extremely saddened to hear that paedophilia does not offend you. Clearly you have no kids.”

    “Keri
    If you wish to debate then please keep a civil tongue “

    You’re very close to wearing out your welcome, mate.

    It’s very simple. The Marriage Act is a piece of civil legislation that applies to all of us, religious and non-religious alike. There is no defence for it discriminating on the grounds of gender.

  106. Zoot you poor bigot.

    ¿Qué?

  107. Turtle, the most obvious reason that polygamous marriage is different to monogamous same-sex or heterosexual marriage is that marriage offers exclusive rights to a single partner that literally cannot be shared by multiple partners.

    Also, for those making the points on Church vs. state:

    First, some were saying that marriage is a sacrament/religious thing, which is true. It is, however, also a secular institution. Atheists/agnostics and even religious people get secular marriages every day without it being a ‘religious’ thing. This is what same-sex attracted people are looking for – secular, legal recognition of their relationships on par with those of heterosexual couples.

    The second point was that if homosexuals were allowed to marry by the state, that religious groups would also be forced to perform same-sex marriages. This claim is also quite ridiculous. To prove this, let’s take an example of marriage laws that is already in place, like those relating to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church retains the right to refuse marriage to a person or persons who have been divorced without going through the proper annulment procedure, yet it is perfectly okay for these people to have a secular marriage. If it were possible to force a church to marry anyone, don’t you think it would have already been tried to overcome this law. Anyway, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to force a priest to reluctantly marry them…

  108. “It is up to you to separate yourself from these people, not defending them as you have done @10pm tonight, and at 7.37pm last night. Otherwise I will continue to associate you with the bible bashing ignorants.” – confessions

    Yeah well that just shows what a dipstick you are. You will continue to associate me with a section of the community that I have clearly stated that I am not associated with.

    And that my friend is how masquaraded biggotry works.

  109. There are also some churches who won’t marry couples who aren’t already a part of their congregation. I understand that churches generally leave it up to the discretion of the priest or minister as to what ceremonies they will and will not perform – this is often the case for baptisms and funerals as well as weddings.
    I had a friend who had cancer and who expressed a desire to be buried at a certain cemetary in the Adelaide Hills where ancestors who first came to Adelaide were buried; she got that wish, but when it came time for the service, her family were told that they couldn’t have it at the local Lutheran church, because they were not part of the usual congregation. They found another church in the next town, but I was gobsmacked that any church anywhere could refuse to perform a funeral! Seemed somewhat contradictory in terms of their core business…
    In one respect, though, I was less surprised because I had seen it all before, but with a wedding. Another friend of mine wanted to get married at a pretty church in Gawler; she and her fiance met with the minister to advise him of the date (check the church was free etc) and were surprised to learn that they had to join the congregation first. They did and were married in that church – after lots of “marriage classes” put on by the minister and lots of Sunday mornings spent at church. It was a nice wedding in the end 🙂

  110. Sorry for the seemingly pointless ramble; my point was that churches can NOW pick and choose who they wish to marry; a law allowing same-sex marriage won’t change that one bit.

    Oh, and I strongly suspect that most gay couples would not WANT to be married by an institution whose major instructive work says they should be put to death 😛

  111. Shows how shallow some people can be….

    “…friend of mine wanted to get married at a pretty church…”

    So they join the congregation and attend church a couple of times so they can get married in a “pretty church”.

  112. Turtle – believe me, that is a not uncommon phenomenon. A woman I worked with earlier this year was talking about changing DENOMINATIONS so she could get married at St Paul’s Cathedral!

  113. Turtle: where is your logical, rational argument against same sex marriage? All you’ve provided are red herrings, LOOK OVER THERE diversions, personal attacks, and backflips.

    If you can’t provide a logical argument against same sex marriage at least be big enough to admit that your views are simply a personal objection against gay couple wanting the same rights as the rest of us. That would at least be a more honest reply instead of all this tortured twisting you are engaging in.

  114. A personal question (and not intended to infer anything; I’m just curious): how old are you, Turtle?
    Feel free to tell me to bugger off, but I am interested to know.

  115. Interesting that Turtle ignores the points that Churches can’t be forced to marry anyone and just attacks someone for being shallow with their church choices…

  116. In Turtle and NAJ’s defence, Turtle has conceded s/he’s got nothing more than a gut feeling to explain his/her feelings about gays, and s/he recognises gay marriage is coming, and NAJ has agreed that gays should have the right to civil marriages under the law, s/he’s just worried about churches having to marry them (hopefully s/he’s reassured by some of the posts above explaining why that will continue not to happen).

  117. Turtle has conceded s/he’s got nothing more than a gut feeling to explain his/her feelings about gays

    In many respects that’s even worse than straight up owning your prejudice as it is designed to convey the appearance of considered or rational thought about equivalent matters which can then be similarly applied to whatever the issue is under debate. And what is there to have a gut feeling about anyway? if marriage rights are extended to same sex couples they will have higher/lower divorce rates thereby making a mockery of the institution itself or straight couples success with marriage respectively? It’s a worse stance than just saying “I object to same sex marriage.”

    *gives up on turtle*

  118. Not Allan Jones

    Jeremy
    How can there be “discriminating on the grounds of gender” in the case of marriage when the status quo for a marriage actually REQUIRES there to be a person from each gender?
    I think you mean sexual orientation….
    But then again the law currently allows gay people to marry so there’s no discrinination there either.

    The idea that “Discrimination in any form should not be tolerated…….” is naive at best. Discrimination occurs every day and for miriad of reasons that are accepted by most.

    Surely Keri if a man and a woman wish to marry then they should be able to without there being any impedement in the law?
    But what about if they share a parent(s), or one is the parent of the other. Regardless of their gender or their sexual orientation these people will be rightly denied the right to marry.
    Oh I hear you say that there are good reasons for that in the case of men and women due to the possible issue of offspring, but only in the case of a man and a woman.
    What if two full or half brothers/sisters wish to mary? Father/son-Mother/daughter?
    These unions would definately be discriminated against and with the support of the majority of people. But why?
    Surely if we see nothing wrong with gay “marriages” then incestuous ones should be lobbied for too?
    Just a thought that came from a discussion around the cooler.

  119. ‘Jeremy
    How can there be “discriminating on the grounds of gender” in the case of marriage when the status quo for a marriage actually REQUIRES there to be a person from each gender?”

    That “definition” inserted by Howard is discriminatory. It tells a man, or a woman, that they may not marry a person that they could if they were of the opposite gender.

    “But then again the law currently allows gay people to marry so there’s no discrinination there either.”

    Not to the same person they’d be able to marry if they were of the opposite gender. IE, sexual discrimination.

    “The idea that “Discrimination in any form should not be tolerated…….” is naive at best. Discrimination occurs every day and for miriad of reasons that are accepted by most.”

    By default, discrimination by the government on the grounds of gender is unacceptable. There may be very particular exceptions that could be argued for very good reasons – but no-one has presented a single even passable reason why it should continue in the Marriage Act.

    “These unions would definately be discriminated against and with the support of the majority of people. But why?”

    You tell us. It’s a separate issue and whilst it instinctively makes me uncomfortable, I haven’t considered it in detail. What are the arguments for and against it? Is anyone advocating for it?

    Interesting debate you’d have there, if anyone was actually interested in it. Not in any way the topic of this post, though.

  120. “accepted by most……”.

    yawn

    “nothing wrong with gay “marriages” then incestuous ones should be lobbied for too?”

    zzzzzzzzz

  121. “Oh I hear you say that there are good reasons for that in the case of men and women due to the possible issue of offspring, but only in the case of a man and a woman.”

    You don’t hear me say that because I haven’t said it. In the case of close family relationships and the right to marry there are more compelling reasons – there is quite often an inequality of consent within those relationships, as well as genetic concerns.

    And that isn’t discrimination on the basis of gender or sexuality – which is what we are talking about – it is based on familial relationship.

    “Surely if we see nothing wrong with gay “marriages” then incestuous ones should be lobbied for too?”

    Can you explain to me what the link between a marriage between two people who are of the same sex and an incestuous marriage is? Can you – with reference to logic, not ridiculous speculation – tell me how the former will lead to the latter?

    I think you are confusing the difference between “denial” and “discrimination”. In Australia, apart from the marriage act, the only other act that permits active discrimination is the Insurance Act.

    The argument against paedophiles marrying their victims is dealt with under two laws – age of consent – which deals with age, not sexuality and sexual assault laws, which deal with lack of consent, not sexuality. Paedophiles are dealt with on the basis of the criminality of their conduct, not their sexuality. Nor do I consider Paedophilia a form of sexuality. It is a form of sexual disease and peversion. Although homosexuality was at one time considered a mental illness, it is no longer considered such.

    For the purposes of this comment, I am using the term “sexuality” to mean “sexual persuasion towards males or females above the age of consent” I do not use it to indicate any form orf disorder of sexuality.

    The argument against siblings and mother/father marriages is rooted in science and fact – the propensity for genetic defects, as well as relationships where one partner has more power than the other (as well as the situations of abuse that occur within those relationships) mean that we cannot condone those relationships. There are issues of abuse of power and position. Again, there is no discrimination based on sex or sexuality – a mother and son can no more marry than a father and son.

    Not so same-sex marriage. There is no logical argument. The closest anyone ever gets is by muddying the waters by playing the incest, beastiality or polygamy card. None of which involve sexual discrimination, and all of which have no more connection to same-sex marriage than they do a marriage between a man and a woman.

  122. No, NAJ – moderated.

    I’m not letting you drag this debate off onto the irrelevant “incest” furphy. If this country ever decides to have a serious debate about legalising incest then we can deal with it then.

    In the meantime, we’re talking about gay marriage. Stick to the topic.

  123. Pingback: There should be some kind of a law for this « An Onymous Lefty

  124. Pingback: The second will be even bigger « An Onymous Lefty

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s