Liberal premier backs gay marriage

[Rorschach]

The polling samples are just ridiculous.

[boxy]

Perhaps it has escaped you but Heterosexuality is by far the human norm. Not that sex and love are the same things dear girl. But that would be why it isn’t questioned and hasn’t been since… hmmm… Adam and Eve?

LOL, you do realise that citing Adam and Eve is akin to citing unicorns and mermaids, don't you, a made up fairy story

Hate to break it to you, princess, but homosexuality is also part of "the human norm". Probably has been since well before we were hominids

[Rorschach]

been waiting for this crap
You disappoint me boxy I'd expect Arsie or mantra or mel or AiA to come up with that crap.

You have heard the phrase since Adam was a boy b4 haven't you....
It's a time thing poxy, do wake up.

If homosexuality is the norm why has society developed the way it has then? hmmm?
Surely we'd have examples of states where it is the norm and not heterosexuality if that was the case.
happy for you to point out any I'm unaware of.

[IQS.RLOW]

Perhaps it has escaped you but Heterosexuality is by far the human norm. Not that sex and love are the same things dear girl. But that would be why it isn’t questioned and hasn’t been since… hmmm… Adam and Eve?

LOL, you do realise that citing Adam and Eve is akin to citing unicorns and mermaids, don't you, a made up fairy story

Hate to break it to you, princess, but homosexuality is also part of "the human norm". Probably has been since well before we were hominids

Is this a "norm" you partake in then boxy?

[Super Nova]

It is normal that there has always been men screwing men. The Greeks thought it was normal. Armies would rape the men on defeat.

Now we should recognise poo punching is the natural bias for a significant minority of men.

[Rorschach]

The straight and narrow
Elizabeth Skinner
November 22, 2011
*comments bolded

I AM same-sex attracted. We should all disclose sources of bias and potential conflicts of interest up front in a transparent manner. It's a shame so many politicians, commentators and members of the general public aren't called upon to disclose their bias before declaring what is good for hetero and homosexual members of society.

So are you compounding your bias by ignoring bisexual people? Would you not consider bisexual people then the only “unbiased people” and therefore the only ones capable of making an unbiased decision on this?

Instead, we are bombarded with arguments why same-sex-attracted people should not be able to marry (each other, mind you - nobody seems concerned that same-sex-attracted people might already be marrying members of the opposite sex) without any disclosure of personal bias. The key voice mostly missing from the broader public debate is that of same-sex-attracted people themselves. Let me add my perspective so at least one voice actually affected by the current law is heard.

I’d have thought same-sex-attracted people are getting a lot of say on the topic. Even to the extent of drowning out others.

Gay marriage is not and never should have been a political issue.

It isn’t and there is no such thing as “Gay Marriage”.
It's a personal one. I've always felt different.

All decisions by thinking individuals are personal ones. I’d expect all individuals feel different.

I was routinely mistaken for a boy by emergency teachers at my school, much to the amusement of both the teachers and my classmates. I didn't find it amusing.

At 18, I tried to understand why all my (heterosexual) friends desperately wanted to pick up members of the opposite sex. I couldn't understand why it was so amazing, or something anybody really desired. I had several boyfriends during my first two years at uni and had trouble staying awake while in the bedroom.

I gather these experiences don’t make you unique.

Now I'm 32 and I feel so blessed to have had my eyes opened to the world of love, desire and attraction by my first same-sex kiss 13 years ago.

Now you know what Heterosexuals and Bisexuals were talking about.

Yet there's still something wrong with me - the government says so - as I can't get married.

No, no and no. No one is saying there is anything wrong with you. The government doesn’t say so at all. Marriage will not make you “right” if you are “wrong”.

Julia Gillard has suggested Labor members will be allowed a conscience vote on the issue. This is not enough. I echo Senator Gavin Marshall (The Age, 16/11) in saying I expect a democratic government to reflect the wishes of the people, not just personal views of elected members.

Yet this is something we all have to accept in many government decisions. Sometimes governments make party decisions and not individual ones and we have to accept them too.

Marriage is a rite of passage.

NO IT ISN”T!!!!! It is a choice. A choice made by a man and a woman.

Within the past six months, my younger sister has become engaged, my housemate's sister has become engaged, at least three work colleagues have been married and several more routinely discuss the details of their upcoming nuptials during their coffee break. These moments are bitter-sweet for me - I am able to participate in the discussion and share in the excitement while knowing it is not legal for me to have the same experience in this country, which I have loved my whole life. A woman's wedding day is said to be the best day of her life, yet this experience and joy are denied to me on the basis that I happen to be attracted to women.

If I choose to marry, it will be because I have found a member of the opposite sex who also wants to marry and in doing so enter into a committed union with me. Remember NOT EVERYONE gets married. Oh and “marriage”, “wedding” and “nuptials” are not the same things.

I hear all kinds of things that are supposed to make me feel better, like the fact that lots of straight people choose not to get married. So what? At least they have a choice.

Yes they have a choice and so do you. You could find a man and get married if you wished. Is your life spent obsessing over marriage? Mine isn’t. Most people’s isn’t. Most gay people I know aren’t the least bit interested in being married. Don’t be jealous of those who choose to marry a member of the opposite sex.

I grew up, much like every other girl in Western society, wanting to get married.

So is this a girl thing?

I don't care about the opinions of straight people on the subject of same-sex marriage - straight people don't have a voice in this debate.

Wrong… they do. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It has been so for millennia. You want this to be changed. Of course they should have a say. If you wanted to change the name of Tennis to Football, shouldn’t the tennis players have a say?

Imagine how outraged straight people would feel if that last sentence was how I actually felt; if they were forbidden to have an opinion on same-sex-attracted marriage.

If you don’t feel it… don’t say it.

Nurses make lousy parents. So do teachers and police. I believe that their children grow up to be psychologically damaged because their parents do shift work and either have to deal with children all day at work or see some very upsetting, horrible situations as part of their daily work. Oh, I'm sorry, do I need to back up those statements with facts or evidence? No one else seems to need to justify their opinions on gay parenting and its effects on children.

Why bother creating strawmen at all. Need I remind you that not all married couple have children, through choice or not. But you do bring up a very important point. Marriage is about family and hence children. Something in the natural world same-sex couples cannot have. Marriage created a family unit… the primary reason people used to marry.

Let's all be honest with ourselves: the real reason same-sex marriage is not legal in Australia is that we are a country of bigots who feel it is acceptable to discriminate against individuals because of their sexuality.

Nope!!! You are the bigot, or just plain ignorant. Let me remind you… Sexuality… is only one part of a relationship… you don’t get married for sex, well at least these days most people don’t. Also… love… isn’t sex.

There is no credible evidence that being same-sex attracted undermines the institution of marriage, affects the children of same-sex marriage or has any other effect on society whatsoever.

Really. That is a grossly ignorant statement. A very biased statement, but then you did say you were biased. Should we change society and do an experiment and then test the evidence. How long should we do it over 30 years? More.

Those concerned for the children of same-sex-attracted people obviously don't care a hoot about the well-being of same-sex-attracted people.

Wrong. Another unsupported supposition.

There is evidence that lesbian, gay and bisexual people are at least twice as likely to attempt suicide over their lives and have a higher risk of anxiety, depression and substance abuse, and I can tell you right now, my government telling me I'm not good enough to get married does not do one single thing to make me feel any better about the sexuality I was dealt.

But it isn’t telling you that. You are telling you that. As an so-called intelligent person, you do your argument and yourself no credit by making such false statements. Your government is telling you the term for the joining of a man and a woman in our society is… MARRIAGE.

If Adam marrying Eve in the Bible has anything at all to do with marriage only being possible between a man and a woman (as has actually been suggested to me), then I pray to God that nobody asks how Cain and Abel (Adam and Eve's sons) had daughters, because I'm not sure what would be legal then.

I might be wrong and if not your building more strawmen… but I don’t think Adam married (in any “modern” sense) Eve, in the book of Genesis. As for Cain and Abel, they had a brother and sisters.

Here's a vision for the future: December 3 sees a bold, brave party making a democratic decision on marriage equality for the benefit of our nation and the gay and lesbian individuals in it, and having the vision to legislate to end discrimination against a section of our community.

Here’s another vision for you, that the term marriage and the marriage act remain as they are and define marriage, as it has always been considered in our society, as the joining of a man and a woman. That the minority of same –sex couples who obsess over the heterosexual rite of marriage, finally accept that their life choice or circumstance means they cannot be married in the true meaning of the word. But have the freedom to choose to be in a union committed or otherwise with a member of the same sex with the same legal rights of a married couple.

mar·riage
   Show Spelled[mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

marriage (ˈmærɪdʒ) — n 1. the state or relationship of being husband and wife 2. a. the legal union or contract made by a man and woman to live as husband and wife b. ( as modifier ): marriage licence ; marriage certificate 3. the religious or legal ceremony formalizing this union; wedding 4. a close or intimate union, relationship, etc: a marriage of ideas 5. (in certain card games, such as bezique, pinochle) the king and queen of the same suit

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

Marriage definition
was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence (Gen. 2:18-24). Here we have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on which all regulations are to be framed (Matt. 19:4, 5). It is evident that monogamy was the original law of marriage (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This law was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced (Gen. 4:19; 6:2). We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the patriarchal age (Gen. 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8, 9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued to be practised all down through the period of Jewish histroy to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record. It seems to have been the practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen. 24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the maiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted (Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was bound to give a price to the father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Ex. 22:16, 17; 1 Sam. 18:23, 25; Ruth 4:10; Hos. 3:2) On these patriarchal customs the Mosaic law made no change. In the pre-Mosaic times, when the proposals were accepted and the marriage price given, the bridegroom could come at once and take away his bride to his own house (Gen. 24:63-67). But in general the marriage was celebrated by a feast in the house of the bride's parents, to which all friends were invited (29:22, 27); and on the day of the marriage the bride, concealed under a thick veil, was conducted to her future husband's home. Our Lord corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt. 22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable" (Heb. 13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate times (1 Tim. 4:3). The marriage relation is used to represent the union between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20). In the New Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his saints (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev. 19:7-9).

[Aussie]

It is normal that there has always been men screwing men. The Greeks thought it was normal. Armies would rape the men on defeat.

Now we should recognise poo punching is the natural bias for a significant minority of men.

Ummmm....and what were the Lesbians doing?

[boxy]

If homosexuality is the norm why has society developed the way it has then? hmmm?
Surely we'd have examples of states where it is the norm and not heterosexuality if that was the case.
happy for you to point out any I'm unaware of.

Human sexuality has a range of behaviours, everywhere you would like to go, regardless of the local legislation for and against. It is part of the overall normal expression of human sexuality (ie. a normal population will have a proportion that identify as gay).

The fact that homosexuality has always been present, despite often draconian regulations, is a clear indication that it isn't something that is chosen.

The only question that needs asking is, "does it do harm, in and of itself"? As far as I can see, the answer to that is "no".

[Rorschach]

It is normal that there has always been men screwing men. The Greeks thought it was normal. Armies would rape the men on defeat.

Now we should recognise poo punching is the natural bias for a significant minority of men.

You've forgotten all about the lesbians SN.

[skippy]

It's as normal as being left handed, has about the same ratio. People representing institutions like the church use to bash the shit out of us for that too.