Gay Marriage in Australia?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Chopped

fairy tales, sky fairies, flying spaghetti monster........really !

Religious people take offence at these remarks......mods do not care it seems.

Just don't offend the gay people by the looks of things.

Settle, mods can not be everywhere at once.

[lilmattie]

Originally Posted by Chopped

fairy tales, sky fairies, flying spaghetti monster........really !

Religious people take offence at these remarks......mods do not care it seems.

Just don't offend the gay people by the looks of things.

I don't think anyone has taken offence; and no-one is being inflammatory or abusive either.

The mods are doing a good job. It's an interesting dicussion.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Mark^^

It is significantly more complex than having a marriage certificate, it’s what the certificate means in both law and society. If a partner is in hospital, for a married couple the spouse is recognised as legal guardian, in a gay de-facto couple, it’s the sick person’s family who makes the decisions, and they may have been estranged from many years. I saw this many times in hospitals during the AIDS crisis in mid to late 80's.

There used to be many other issues such as inheritance and supper after death but these have been overcome with legislation over the last three years.

The right for social and legal justice for gay and lesbian people has its beginnings in the Stonewall riots in 1969. I have been out as a gay man for many years and have been involved in striving for social justice and equity for most of that time. I have seen gay men bashed and locked up for walking down the streets holding hands. I have seen sick guys in hospital slowly die alone and isolated because their family and society rejected them. I participated in the Mardi Gras protests when they were protests and not the glamor event of later yearsand have felt the impact of police batons.

The fight for social justice amongst minority groups is always difficult and for gay and lesbian people most of the legal impediments to legal equality have been achieved in Australia, however some still see a need to gain full social equality through relationship recognition called ‘marriage’. Issues about how successful gay and lesbian marriages will or won’t be is not at issues, it’s the right to be granted that legal status.

For me when all the legislation was changed in the last few years and most discrimination was removed from statutes was enough. I chose a celibate life (through my catholic experience) and so I don’t see myself qualified to argue for gay marriage, to me the issue is just not important.

thanks mark . great post . i see you have fighting for the more important things . i was about to argue that i've been bashed simply for looking at a forsale sign on a car , for walking home under the influence , trying to do the right thing , etc etc blah blah blah . but i see you summed it up perfectly in your last paragraph. showing the more important issues of prejudice moreso than a piece of paper . cheers

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by Chopped

fairy tales, sky fairies, flying spaghetti monster........really !

Religious people take offence at these remarks......mods do not care it seems.

Just don't offend the gay people by the looks of things.

You think gay people wouldn't be offended by some of the stuff in here?
Oh of course, only the religious can't be discriminated against...

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by ESP

I'm not against it............but I am concerned about how such changes are cultured and eductaed to our kids so that it is done correctly with some thought on both sides.

Apologies in advance If I have offended anyone.........it iwas not my intent.

I don't think it would turn a raving hetero into a raving homo... You are not going to want to sleep with the same sex just because it is okay to do so.

Your point about kids, culture and change... I see this as a mandatory step to help those kids into the future that do go through a momentous self hating struggle with their sexuality, and helping to make that a less momentous and self loving realisation of their sexuality.

[lilmattie]

Originally Posted by mcnews

You think gay people wouldn't be offended by some of the stuff in here?
Oh of course, only the religious can't be discriminated against...

I think both gays and 'religous' people are both discriminated against - but in different ways.

Certainly discrimination is the flagship for the whole movement on the 'marriage' issue.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by lilmattie

I think both gays and 'religous' people are both discriminated against - but in different ways.

What does society prevent you from doing because you believe in god?

[The Yeti]

I will go on the record as being a hetrosexual male, married for 14years with 2 kids.

Should gay couples be allowed to marry: YES

Should it be known as a Marragie: YES (why not if it has the same meaning why not call it the same thing, I think if its called a cival union, the whole argument will continue until its called a marrage any how).

Should gay couples be allowd to to adopt, have childeren via IVF etc. YES why not. a good parrent is a good parrent, and like wise good parrents are good parrents, it makes no difference if its a male and a female or two males or two females.

Thats my opinion any how.

[Sox]

This.

Originally Posted by Geez Louise

Love is love...I am all for people who love each other to be married. I don't care if it is two guys or two girls. I know some very hard working gay people, who pay taxes, vote etc etc and I know some lazy ones too. Why shouldn't everyone have the same rights?

As long as they are happy and it's not hurting anyone...I don't have an issue with it! People should mind their own business!

More power to them!

And this.

Originally Posted by dave351cid

looks like a hot topic here.
well done to geckoGT and everyone else for keeping it pretty civil.

personally i done see what the issue is ???

in general i think that it is a call for gay`s, bi`s, lesbian`s or anyone else to be able to "legally" marry.

this should be about legal entitlements and reconition and religious or other views and beliefs should not come into it.
i myself do not hold any religious beliefs, i can still get legally married though. does that mean that i still have to follow someone elses rules as to who i marry ??

i`m not trying to sound anti religious here ( everyone should be able to live how the want -- "provided they are not hurting anyone else".
who has the right to say that "my way is the only way and anything different is wrong" ??

i have known quite a lot of homosexuals and i must say that must of them are better people then a lot of the "normal" people i know.

give them their full rights and lets get on with the real problems this country has.

And this.

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I "married " my wife, in a civil service, in front of a Celebrant.

We are not religious, so there was no mention of God or Christianity during our legal marriage service.

Interestingly there are many Christian groups that would have been happy to marry us in their church, despite the fact we are both atheists.

There are also Christian groups that would not allow us to be married in there church because of our beliefs.

I support the rights of churches to decide who they will allow to marry in their church.

I also support the rights of gay people to be legally married, just as I am.

I'm old enough to remember similar debates about legalising being gay.

I hope I'm young enough to see this debate go the same way.

And this.

Originally Posted by GT0132

Why on Earth would gay couples want to get married when marriage is really nothing more than a piece of paper anyway??

Marriage hasn't worked in the hetrosexual world with over 50% of first marriages failing and even worse for 2nd marriages. I've done it twice and "may" be persuaded to do it a 3rd time but, if not, happy to live the rest of my life in a de facto. I don't get the hype but if they want it let them have it.

Pretty much sums it up for me.

My wife and I also had a quicky wedding (11years ago) in a celebrants house with his father and wife as witnesses. It took all of 15mins and we were done. Cost $180, beaut, more money for toys.

I don't really see what the fuss is today, Marriage has much less meaning than it did many years ago.
It's simply no ones business but the couple involved.

I find it kinda ironic that some feel it's fine and dandy for gays to have an 'almost defacto' marriage, yet not the real thing.
How will gays being 'actually married' effect you any different than it did before they were married?

[Streets]

Originally Posted by ESP

Ia lso feel for the younger generation who may be confused and bewildered at the sight of same sex couples - we as parents need to be equipped to be able to deal with the cultural change correctly if it is going to be successful.

If it weren't for adults being confused and bewildered by same-sex couples, children would barely question it.

Originally Posted by ESP

Apologies in advance If I have offended anyone.........it iwas not my intent.

It seemed like a good question to me. It's one that's asked a lot in this kind of debate, "what about the children?" I think children have a remarkable clarity of thought and are able to quickly see what's important in life, and they are a lot more accepting these days than people realise. Certainly a lot more accepting than the elder generations. I sincerely doubt there would be any kind of negative effects on children.

[arlester]

Originally Posted by ESP

Great topic.......good to see it going with some healthy discussion

My only contribution to this is how does it affect our kids..........what effect do we want this to have on our kids - young or old ?

We may very well be able to dicuss this as adults , from an adults perspective with adult tolerances and have a great moderated discussion........however - decisions like these affect all of society and more often than not its the younger generations that are left to deal with our decisions.

I really do feel for those couples that are striving for equal rights....its important to them and they live in a democracy where they have the right to placate their concerns and their lifestyles. Ia lso feel for the younger generation who may be confused and bewildered at the sight of same sex couples - we as parents need to be equipped to be able to deal with the cultural change correctly if it is going to be successful. This is more than just aknowledging the rights of a minority group......its also about managing the rights of the majority groups as well........?

I'm not against it............but I am concerned about how such changes are cultured and eductaed to our kids so that it is done correctly with some thought on both sides.

Apologies in advance If I have offended anyone.........it iwas not my intent.

I understand your view here. The main thing people worry about with kids is them thinking that it is normal to be gay. Well to be honest yes it is normal because the people who are gay can't help or don't choose so it must be normal. I wouldn't worry to much about the kids growing up to be gay just because they saw it when they were young. It comes back to laws of attraction.

Another thing is if gay marriage gets legalized it is not going to be gay couples walking down the street holding hands and kissing everywhere. Yes you see it a little bit now anyway but it won't increase dramatically. The reason for this is people still don't like the fact of gay people living in society. So we aren't going to pronounce it anymore for the main reason we don't wanna have any trouble started on us in the streets or bars that we go to.

[lilmattie]

Originally Posted by mcnews

What does society prevent you from doing because you believe in god?

Nothing here in Australia. Completely different story in many other countries. But I 'did' say that the discrimination is different. Quite often; just having an opinion based on christian belief is enough to discredit anything a 'religious' person says.

[mcnews]

Definitely not, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Others are also free to lampoon that opinion as they see fit. What you are saying is that if people do no agree with your beliefts and say they don't, or call them silly, is that they are discriminating against you. That is not discrimination, that's your insecurity.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by Streets

I think children have a remarkable clarity of thought and are able to quickly see what's important in life, .

Too right, it is only when people mess up their heads with discimrinatory crap and attitudes that the purity is lost.

[lilmattie]

An interesting and relevant read..

There is a bill before the Australian Parliament to change the current definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry. The debate over same-sex marriage is about the function and purpose of the law in relation to marriage and not a discussion that goes to personal motivation and attitudes.

We ought to deal fairly with every member of the human family and their needs, including people of homosexual orientation. In the same spirit, ad hominem attacks on defenders of traditional marriage spiced by the use of pejoratives such a "homophobic" and "bigot" do not add to understanding of the issue.

It is significant that everywhere the issue has been debated it begins on the issue of fairness and justice and with majority support but that soon changes when people realise that there are deeper issues involved. After their legislature experimented with same-sex marriage, the people of California voted against the revisionist concept of marriage.

The main claim in favour of changing the law in this way is that the current law unfairly singles out people who experience same-sex attraction not allowing them to have the same status as people who are married. It is important to note that the federal law in Australia has already been changed to give same-sex partners the same legal rights as those who are married and in an increasing number of states to register their unions. The remaining issue therefore is the definition of marriage.

Changing the law so that marriage includes same-sex unions would be a change to what marriage means. Currently marriage involves a comprehensive union between a man and a woman, and norms of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage has a place in the law because a relationship between a man and a woman is the kind of relationship that may produce children. Marriage is linked to children, for the sake of children, protecting their identity and their nurture by a mother and a father.

The State would have no interest in the permanence and exclusivity of marriage if it were not the fact that marriage may produce children.

Marriage protects the rights of children

There are many variations of households that nurture children, including those that can only have occurred through the use of technology. In all circumstances in which children are nurtured, the State has a parens patriae interest in the welfare of children. It is for that reason that the State is involved with legislating to ensure the identity and status of children.

The law determines who are a child's parents in circumstances in which reproductive technology has created ambiguity by separating reproduction from the biological relationship between a man and a woman.

In the same way the State has an interest in marriage because the relationship between a man and a woman is capable of generating children.

The State supports marriage because children may result from it. The State lacks a reason to legislate to promote relationships that do not produce children. The State has an interest in the exclusiveness and permanency of marriage because they are needed to protect the identity and status of any children who result from marriage, in the first instance, and to preserve their rights to know, to have access to and to be cared for by both a mother and father.

Altering the definition of marriage to include relationships that are not the kind of relationship to generate children removes the primary basis and justification for the State's interest in marriage.

If children happen to be in a same-sex household they will always have come from outside that relationship, either through an earlier relationship or through the use of some other biological parent and technology.

In the case of a same-sex male household, that would be through someone else being the child's birth mother. The law already operates to secure the relationship of that child to social parents. There is no direct relationship between a same-sex relationship and children, and those relationships are of no more interest to the law than any other kind of relationship.

If the law were to be changed so that marriage included same-sex relationships, then marriage would no longer be about children. It would be about adults only.

Marriage links a child to a mother and father

Changing the definition of marriage would thus be a blow to parenthood generally, with the State withdrawing its interest in promoting the stability of parenthood.

It is interesting that when Victoria legislated to permit surrogacy, through the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2008, it introduced the concept of "substitute parenthood" and the first casualty was fatherhood. There are no fathers in the legislation, just mothers and parents. Everything turns on the woman who gives birth and her relationships and those whom she appoints to be the substitute parents.

The significance of being a father to a child has been completely lost in the new law. Those who are most harmed by that are the children who no longer have a right to both a father and a mother, and their biological connectedness to a father no longer has any status in the law.

By declaring a legal equivalence between same-sex relationships and marriage, the revisionist approach would further bury the rights of children, because they would cease to be the focus of marriage. Marriage would be about adults only and, in that sense, self-serving for them.

The significance of the current legal concept of marriage is about securing the relationship of the child to both a mother and a father. Marriage involves the couple committing to be parents together through their love for each other. If you take that out of the meaning of marriage it becomes just like any other relationship, of meaning to the couple, but of no direct relevance to anyone else.

In redefining marriage, the law would teach that marriage is fundamentally about adults' emotional unions, not complementary bodily union or children, with which marital norms are tightly intertwined.

Since emotions can be variable, viewing marriage essentially as an emotional union would tend to increase marital instability. It would also blur the distinction between marriage and friendship.

Ordinary friendships are not always permanent and exclusive. Emotional unions need not be either, and so the expectation of marriages to be permanent and exclusive will make less and less sense.

Less able to understand the rationale for these marital norms, people would feel less bound to live by them. And less able to understand the value of marriage itself as a certain kind of union, even apart from the value of its emotional satisfactions, people would increasingly fail to see the intrinsic reasons they have for marrying or staying with a spouse when one's feelings for the other change.

In other words, a mistaken marriage policy would distort people's understanding of the kind of relationship that spouses are to form and sustain. And that is likely to erode people's adherence to marital norms of permanence and exclusivity that are essential to the common good because children need them.

The State records marriage to ensure it is not taken lightly. State involvement tests a couple's mutual consent to each other and to the purposes of their marriage. But this State involvement can only make sense if one of the purposes inherent in marriage is children.

Through the State, society discourages marrying people from failing their obligations to each other, and hence to their children. Likewise, the State records the births of children, the deaths of their natural parents, and marital dissolution, all in the best interests of children.

Similarly, the State now tracks the complexities of assisted reproductive technology - the use of donors and surrogates - again for the sake of children. (However, we think these technological practices fragment parenting. When a child gains a committee of parents, her origin and identity lose definition. She is put at risk by practices that dissipate the security of relationship to her natural mother and father.)

Revising marriage at home and at school

Marriage has been placed under strain through other social and legal developments. Easy divorce for example has already worn down the ties that bind spouses to something beyond themselves and thus more securely to each other. Endorsing same-sex marriage would mean cutting some remaining but most important threads.

The attraction of the marital norms is the deep (if implicit) connection in peoples' minds between marriage, bodily union, and children. Enshrining the revisionist view would not just wear down but tear out this foundation, and with it any basis for reversing other recent trends and restoring the many social benefits of a healthy marriage culture.

Those benefits redound to children and spouses/parents alike. Because children fare best on most indicators of health and wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents, the further erosion of marital norms would adversely affect children, forcing the State to play a larger role in their health, education, and formation more generally.

As for adults, those in the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of society would be hit the hardest by the weakening of marriage. Protecting and supporting marriage is an economic advantage in the rearing of children. Supporting marriage as a relationship between parents or potential parents is in the interests of the State.

A factor to be considered is that if the concept of marriage is revised in the law so that it is no longer about relationships that may produce children, then our schools will be obliged to teach that revisionist concept. It is one thing to say that the law has nothing to do with what two men or two women do in their private life, it is quite another to change the law to promote those relationships.

If marriage is redefined, then that is what we are going to have to teach and affirm to our children and in our schools. Why should a minority lifestyle so influence curriculum? Why should teachers be prevented from teaching that marriage is primarily about children?

Marriage is a union of difference

The traditional concept of marriage is consistently found across cultures throughout history. This is not to say matters such as customs and rituals have not changed over time. It is simply to say that marriage has always been understood in every society throughout recorded human history as being between a man and a woman.

As a comprehensive union of spouses, marriage means a sharing of lives and resources, a union of minds and wills, and hence the requirement of consent for forming marriage. It also means something more as well: the bodily union of a man and a woman, whereby the two become "one flesh."

If two people want to unite in the comprehensive way proper to marriage, they must, among other things, unite organically - that is, in the bodily dimension of their being through sexual intercourse.

With one exception, a person is complete within themselves as to bodily organs and their functions: heart, lungs, stomach and so on. In other words, for any of these functions a person does not require a contribution from anyone else. The one biological function for which individual adults are naturally incomplete is sexual reproduction.

In sexual intercourse, but not in any other form of sexual contact, a man and a woman's bodies coordinate by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction. In this way they perform the first step of the complex reproductive process. Their bodies become one by coordinating for the biological good of the whole, thereby securing future generations at the same time as they give unique expression to their love one for the other.

This way of viewing marriage has become less persuasive only because widespread contraception has masked the connection between marital sexual activity, and the rearing of children. That in turn conveys the impression that all modes of sexual expression seem equivalent. But marriage remains deeply and uniquely orientated to bearing and rearing children.

By contrast, two men or two women cannot achieve the same kind of union, since there is no child-oriented outcome or function toward which their bodies can coordinate. Same-sex partnerships lack any essential and natural orientation to children: they cannot be sealed by the generative act.

A child's relationship to both mother and father is inherent to marriage. Children conceived by other means may find themselves with people in parental roles who are in a same-sex relationship, but such relationships are not the origin of the child. It is possible for children to be nurtured in such a household, but however good that nurturing, it will not provide the biological link and security of identity and relationship that marriage naturally demands and confirms.

Marriage also provides children a role model of the human love of their parents relating as man and woman. Its complementarity ensures the unilateral love of each parent to the child and the necessary differences between motherly and fatherly love.

In contrast, the revisionist case asserts that there is no necessity for a child to experience both fathering and mothering within the family.

These arguments are not negated by marriage breakdown, the early death of a parent, the adoption of children, de facto relationships, or the practice of step-parenting. The complications and tragedies of an imperfect world do not justify the redefinition of marriage.

Children need marriage

Given the marital relationship's natural orientation to children, it is not surprising that, according to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every indicator of wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents.

Studies that allow for other relevant factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes fare best on the following measures:

> Educational achievement: literacy and graduation rates;

> Emotional health: rates of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicide;

> Familial and sexual development: strong sense of identity, timing of onset of puberty, rates of teen and out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and rates of sexual abuse; and

> Child and adult behaviour: rates of aggression, attention deficit disorder, delinquency and incarceration.

The bodily union integral to marriage helps to create stable and harmonious conditions suitable for children. Consider the conclusions of the reputably progressive research institution Child Trends:

"Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes ... There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents ... It is not simply the presence of two parents ... but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children's development."

In contrast to the current understanding of marriage, the revisionist view asserts that marriage is the union of two people (whatever their sexual identity or orientation) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life, so long as love and mutual care remain. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable.

In this revisionist view, the couple also has a right to rear children, however conceived. The procreative element intrinsic to marriage is replaced by an expectation that children may be acquired optionally, by acts of the will, not of the body. According to this understanding, the State should recognise and regulate marriage because it has more interest in romantic partnerships than in the concrete needs of children.

Revising marriage would cause harm

At the heart of the argument for same-sex marriage lies the revisionist propositions that same-sex marriage harms no-one, and that to deny gay and lesbian couples marriage is a denial of "natural justice." But under these proposals, marriage would be totally changed. Marriage would be something else. It would place adult sexual choice and emotional commitment at the centre.

In other words, marriage would not be about securing the rights of children, but rather meeting the needs of adults. Under these conditions (rarely articulated, but nevertheless the case), there is of course no reason why marriage rights should not be granted to polyamorous relationships, or indeed any other type of sexual relationship.

Indeed, it is unclear even why sexual activity should be the focal point - why couldn't long term housemates or inseparable golfing partners likewise seek recognition at law for their relationships?

The revisionist case reduces marriage to a matter of choice and love between adults. For the most part advocates have avoided discussion of the deeper meaning of marriage, insisting instead that the change will be minimal in impact. But if the definition of marriage is changed, that will affect all of us, children in particular, because "marriage" will primarily serve the interests of adults.

Marriage is a public, not a private matter. Revisionists, by advocating so strongly for change, tacitly acknowledge this. It is not simply therefore a matter of allowing a freedom for ourselves. It is a matter of determining what best promotes human flourishing.

Marriage is not unjust

In respect of the argument around ending discrimination, it is wrong and misleading to depict the case for same-sex marriage as a case for ending discrimination or for equal legal recognition of relationships.

The Federal Parliament amended 84 pieces of legislation in 2008 to place homosexual rights and entitlements on the same basis as others. The Marriage Equality website itself admits that after these amendments the Marriage Act is the only legislation requiring change - this is not an issue of substantive discrimination.

Not only so, but homosexual couples in NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT are able to register their same-sex partnerships on a relationships register that provides public recognition and affirmation of their relationships.

The push for same-sex marriage is therefore largely ideological, because there is clearly no intention in any jurisdiction that they be subjected to any substantial discrimination on entitlement.

No one is done a real injustice when we positively honour and uphold marriage as currently understood. We currently honour those men and women who are united in lifelong, complementary, faithful and procreative relationships by calling them "married."

In a liberal democracy, others can form other types of relationships; but 'marriage' is a term reserved for a particular kind of relationship that brings with it obligations to others beyond the two parties. Marriage is shared obligation for children.

That marriage has come under stress from a variety of causes over the past 50 years, no fault divorce included, is no reason for radically altering its core nature, its aspirational value to society that it is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

The motion calling on Parliamentarians to canvass their constituents on same-sex marriage noted "a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa." This is hardly a formidable list given there are 192 member countries of the United Nations.

Significantly, the French Constitutional Council (often considered to act as France's supreme court) recently upheld the legislature's refusal to name same-sex relationships as marriage. It held that France's parliament has the freedom to retain marriage as currently understood.

The Council ruled that a refusal of same-sex marriage does not violate the French constitution. French lawmakers, it said, had agreed that the "difference in situations between same-sex couples and couples made up of a man and a woman can justify a difference in treatment concerning family rights."

In June 2006, the European Court ruled that the region's human rights convention "did not oblige a State to grant a same-sex couple access to marriage" as marriage has "deep-rooted social and cultural connotations."

In other words, this ruling acknowledges that no one is disadvantaged when a society retains a distinctive name for these lifelong, faithful, exclusive and potentially procreative relationships between men and women which are oriented towards securing cognitively and spiritually the biological relationship that may result in the bearing and nurturing of children.

The Parliamentary motion also noted that there was "widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community."

Democracy does not mean government by opinion polls or government by majority opinion. Democratic principles require government for the people and by the people.

Our representatives elected by the majority of people have obligations to govern for the people. They have obligations to protect minorities, even against majority opinion. They have a particular obligation to protect children.

The traditional concept of marriage has a place in the law for the purpose of supporting the exclusivity and faithfulness of those biological relationships that result in children.

Marriage in the law is for the sake of children and society, and for providing a paradigm to set a comparative standard for the complexity of relationships in which children might otherwise find themselves.

[lilmattie]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Definitely not, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Others are also free to lampoon that opinion as they see fit. What you are saying is that if people do no agree with your beliefts and say they don't, or call them silly, is that they are discriminating against you. That is not discrimination, that's your insecurity.

Not at all. I am very secure in my belief. I agree with you! Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and beliefs.

[mcnews]

There is bias, and then there is BIAS, and that is bias in capitals. S
YOu missed the important bit at the bottom.... The bit about it being a collective work of professional discriminators.

---
This article was prepared by Rev. Rod Benson, Baptist Union of Australia; Dr Denise Cooper-Clarke, ETHOS Evangelical Alliance Centre for Christianity and Society; Rev. Dr Andrew Cameron, Social Issues Executive, Anglican Diocese of Sydney; Dr John McClean, Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney; Mr Chris Meney, Life, Marriage and Family Centre, Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney; Rev. David Palmer Presbyterian Church of Victoria; A/Prof Nicholas Tonti-Filippini KCSG, John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family; and Brig. (retd) Jim Wallace AM, Australian Christian Lobby.

[lilmattie]

Originally Posted by mcnews

There is bias, and then there is BIAS, and that is bias in capitals. S
YOu missed the important bit at the bottom.... The bit about it being a collective work of professional discriminators.

---
This article was prepared by Rev. Rod Benson, Baptist Union of Australia; Dr Denise Cooper-Clarke, ETHOS Evangelical Alliance Centre for Christianity and Society; Rev. Dr Andrew Cameron, Social Issues Executive, Anglican Diocese of Sydney; Dr John McClean, Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney; Mr Chris Meney, Life, Marriage and Family Centre, Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney; Rev. David Palmer Presbyterian Church of Victoria; A/Prof Nicholas Tonti-Filippini KCSG, John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family; and Brig. (retd) Jim Wallace AM, Australian Christian Lobby.

Thanks, I did miss that. And... how are they 'professional descriminators'? All points are still valid.

Aren't you now descriminating against them, because they're Christian?

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by lilmattie

Aren't you now descriminating against them, because they're Christian?

No, I am pointing out their obvious bias on the subject. And that they earn their living out of pushing their bias on society.

[lilmattie]

Originally Posted by mcnews

No, I am pointing out their obvious bias on the subject. And that they earn their living out of pushing their bias on society.

But by that precendant; most people lobbying for the 'gay marriage' have an obvious BIAS 'for' the argument.

Of course there's going to be bias. A gay couple would be biased because that's what they think is right.

A christian point of view is also going to be biased because they think it's wrong.

[geckoGT]

Personally after wading through pages of this thread about 6 times I am interested in the assumption that homosexuality is the minority and heterosexuality is the majority. This concept seems to suggest that this is a black or white situation. For the sake of debate I would like to challenge your collective thinking on that for a bit.

As you may have guessed, I have done a lot of research for university study on a very similar topic. In that study I came across a number of studies that rated people on a scale called the Kinsey scale. The scale is made up of 7 increments ranging from completely heterosexual (0) through bisexual (3-4) and on to homosexual (6), through a process of honest self assessment. It was found in a number of studies that the percentage of respondents that rated themselves as 0 (completely heterosexual) was only about 37%.

Therefore this whole idea that homosexual is the minority and heterosexual is the majority is flawed in the evidence that the minority group is heterosexual, only a small percentage is white, the rest are varying shades of grey to black.

Therefore, a large % of the population that range from 3-6 on the scale have a better than 50% chance of finding themselves in same sex relationship.

There is also theory that those that did score 0 (heterosexual) did not answer completely honestly due to the stigma attached to being gay.

So the problem may be how do we define the minority in regards to this topic?

[mcnews]

If someone is lobbying for something politically and trying to influence politicians then yes, obviously they are going to be talking about something they believe in, and thus have biased their argument in favour of their belief.
But so see any value in most of the points raised in that article, I believe one already has to be somewhat biased to their religious point of view. But if your constitution was really held turuthful then religion would have no influence on politics, but sadly that is far from the case.

[Mark^^]

Originally Posted by lilmattie

An interesting and relevant read..

There is a bill before the Australian Parliament to change the current definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry...

There are always many arguments to an article I can quote many scholarly studies that show that there is no impact on children if they are raised by either good straight or gay parents, the issues is GOOD PARENTING not the gender of the parents. I guess in the end its the one that one reads and fits with their world view that will win.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by mcnews

There is bias, and then there is BIAS, and that is bias in capitals. S
YOu missed the important bit at the bottom.... The bit about it being a collective work of professional discriminators.

---
This article was prepared by Rev. Rod Benson, Baptist Union of Australia; Dr Denise Cooper-Clarke, ETHOS Evangelical Alliance Centre for Christianity and Society; Rev. Dr Andrew Cameron, Social Issues Executive, Anglican Diocese of Sydney; Dr John McClean, Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney; Mr Chris Meney, Life, Marriage and Family Centre, Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney; Rev. David Palmer Presbyterian Church of Victoria; A/Prof Nicholas Tonti-Filippini KCSG, John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family; and Brig. (retd) Jim Wallace AM, Australian Christian Lobby.

Originally Posted by lilmattie

Thanks, I did miss that. And... how are they 'professional descriminators'? All points are still valid.

Aren't you now descriminating against them, because they're Christian?

Originally Posted by mcnews

No, I am pointing out their obvious bias on the subject. And that they earn their living out of pushing their bias on society.

Originally Posted by lilmattie

But by that precendant; most people lobbying for the 'gay marriage' have an obvious BIAS 'for' the argument.

Of course there's going to be bias. A gay couple would be biased because that's what they think is right.

A christian point of view is also going to be biased because they think it's wrong.

One thing in life that is sure is that everyone has a bias of some sort, most here are biased towards Ford. Bias does not define wrong or right, it just points to the basis of the opinion.

When quoting the works of others it is good practice to identify the source, it assists others in assessing the work and coming to their own solutions.

[lilmattie]

Originally Posted by mcnews

If someone is lobbying for something politically and trying to influence politicians then yes, obviously they are going to be talking about something they believe in, and thus have biased their argument in favour of their belief.
But so see any value in most of the points raised in that article, I believe one already has to be somewhat biased to their religious point of view. But if your constitution was really held turuthful then religion would have no influence on politics, but sadly that is far from the case.

So we concede - we agree on one point at least.

Pretty sure the article wasn't talking about religion.. Yes, it was written by Christian authors - but the discussion in the arcile was ethical, not religious.

[mcnews]

And as for procreation.... Ever thought that same-sex attraction might be a trigger nature is using to try and prevent the human race from breeding themselves and the planet to death... The same for infertility in straight population.

[lilmattie]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

One thing in life that is sure is that everyone has a bias of some sort, most here are biased towards Ford. Bias does not define wrong or right, it just points to the basis of the opinion.

When quoting the works of others it is good practice to identify the source, it assists others in assessing the work and coming to their own solutions.

Thanks GeckoGT. I agree - I'll make sure I include the sources in future.

[lilmattie]

Originally Posted by mcnews

And as for procreation.... Ever thought that same-sex attraction might be a trigger nature is using to try and prevent the human race from breeding themselves and the planet to death... The same for infertility in straight population.

Possibly, if I'm wrong...

[BFZF8]

Just another word of congratulations on everybody keeping this civil and mature. Well done, all. Awesome moderating too.

[BLUEYBA]

Originally Posted by mcnews

If someone is lobbying for something politically and trying to influence politicians then yes, obviously they are going to be talking about something they believe in, and thus have biased their argument in favour of their belief.
But so see any value in most of the points raised in that article, I believe one already has to be somewhat biased to their religious point of view. But if your constitution was really held turuthful then religion would have no influence on politics, but sadly that is far from the case.

This is where I think if the law is to be changed it should not be changed by politicians but by the people through a vote. I think a referendum (correct me if i'm wrong) That way the different groups can not lobby a single person who is making a decision for the people of their electorate.