Christian lobby ‘getting desperate’

Christian lobby ‘getting desperate’

Claims today by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to the legalisation of polygamy have been slammed by activists as a desperate scare tactic.

The Australian reports this morning on moves by the ACL to step-up its opposition to the marriage equality debate.

An online petition pushing for the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act to be retained has also been established as part of the fight against the growing tide of support for marriage equality reforms in Australia..

ACL claims if marriage is redefined, as it has been in Canada, “the next push will be for marriage to include polygamous relationships, as is currently being tested in a court in Canada”.

Australian Marriage Equality national convener Alex Greenwich said polygamy has not been legalised in any of the countries which allow same-sex couples to marry.

“In Australia the definition of marriage is quite clear — it is a loving committed union freely entered into by two people, something which can easily encompass same-sex partners but which is fundamentally different from polygamy which is usually one man marrying and lording it over several women,” he said.

“By using a desperate scare-tactic like the threat of polygamy, the Australian Christian Lobby is showing it has no real case against allowing same-sex couples to marry.”

Greenwich said he was disappointed the Christian Lobby had yet to reciprocate the commitment made by his group to a respectful and mature debate on marriage equality, and has instead condoned hatred.

“We stand by our pledge to conduct this important public debate with respect and call on opponents of reform to do the same,” Greenwich said.


You May Also Like

71 responses to “Christian lobby ‘getting desperate’”

  1. Dave, most male homosexual relationships are not monogamous – that statement is neither offensive nor homophobic.

    It reflects the experience of most gay men in relationships. Why you should feel shame about that, or feel a need to point the finger and say “heterosexual couples do just the same!”…frankly that reflects your own internalised homophobia.

    If you and your partner are monogamous, good luck to you. If you and your partner have an open relationship, also good luck to you. Both deserve no less rights than a heterosexual relationship.

  2. Statements such as homosexuals are not monogamous lack any foundation and is offensive, disgraceful, and homophobic. The argument for Civil Unions should not be made using homophobia. “I can’t be trusted to marry”, is a stupid argument. Whilst the author of the argument may think most of us are promiscuous, there is no evidence to show we are any different to heterosexual people. And I am not sure it is my business what couples do or do not do if they are heterosexual or not. If they are happy then I thought that is what matters. It is their bloody choice what they do. How far is government meant to reach into our life? It is bad enough the try and regulate marriage instead of the community.

    Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke had an affairs, let alone infidelity being a major reason for divorce. And should we talk of all those brothels operating 24hrs overflowing with men who have wedding rings on? What about the office affairs? Really, people are the same. I have been monogamous in my relationship of 10 years, so have most of our friends who heterosexual and homosexual.

    The Federal Governments own data, shows a major reason why heterosexual people divorce is from infidelity. http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/WP20.html

    A number of courts around the world have ruled that schemes separate from marriage cannot be equal to marriage. Most recently, the California Supreme Court ruled on 15 May 2008 that giving the unions of same-sex couples a name that was separate and distinct from marriage reduced gays to “second-class citizens”. Studies in the US and UK also show that civil unions do not deliver the same legal security and social recognition as marriage.

    I support equality under the law, and do not support a second-class system of marriage known as Civil Unions. I do not pay half taxes, but all taxes. I do not love my partner less then the next couple. I do not expect my government to treat me as though my love is worth less, or not really the same. I can grow old with my love, I can look after him when he is ill, I can lay him to rest when we are old, but I can never get married?

  3. There is an important kernel of truth being argued here.

    The majority of heterosexual marriages are monogamous. Affairs do happen – and are grounds for divorce.

    The majority of gay relationships are not monogamous. Many do not aspire to monogamy and have a variety of understandings about how their open relationship works.

    The Marriage Act talks about “to the exclusion of all others” – meaning sexually exclusive.

    It’s one reason I prefer Civil Unions to Marriage. At the point in the ceremony where Reverend Lovejoy says “to the exclusion of all others”, I dont want to cross my fingers.

  4. Rob1966,
    Im not going to argue anymore,this is just stupid “Happy mardi gras” see you on the news,darling

  5. @Mark of sydney .. again you have failed to support your claim.

    As for “holding hands” .. claiming that doing it “out west” is asking for trouble, is just highlighting your ingrained homophobia.

    If we don’t demonstrate that we exist, that we are everywhere in society, that we are no different to “straights”, and that we are as “normal” as anyone else all we achieve is perpetuating the homophobia that exists.

    So much has been achieved in the past 30 years, but much more is still to be done. The brave gays and lesbians that first marched in 1978, and those who followed in later years shouting slogans such as “we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” did so much to normalise the existence of homosexuals in the minds of so many.

    We need to stand up for our rights – and that includes the rights of all members of our community, whether they want to get married or not.

    I know mid-40s straight guys who go out weekends to pick-up, and married straight guys who play around on their wives (and vice versa) .. but you don’t hear me shouting out that straights don’t deserve to get married.

    If you don’t want to step foot outside your closet door that is your perogative – but don’t expect the rest of our community to cower inside there with you.

  6. Well said, rob1966. Mark of Sydney, claiming many gays are *apathetic* about marriage or reject it for themselves personally is NOT the same as the original claim that “vast quantities” of gays oppose legalising same-sex marriage. If you too claim the latter, once again I say “prove it”. The problem with using anecdote as evidence is that a) you don’t know what you don’t know, including how blinkered your own view may actually be; and b) all generalisations are false, including this one ;)

    As it happens, there are also straight people disinterested in marriage who only want to fuck too. Is that a reason to deny all straights the right to marry? Clearly not. So why do it to all gays? Contrary to Mark’s insinuation, the many gay folk who are clearly NOT interested in “one party after another” should not have to prove anything to anyone in order to access an equal human right to consensually marry the adult person that they love.

  7. Dear Rob1966,
    I value your opinion.
    Hetrosexuals fuck around,but the majority of them “Sow their Seeds” by 35 marry & settle down,where as the majority of Gay men are still partying and fucking around 45+.
    Secondly u say the good homosexual stays home to be “Seen and unheard”
    well the majority of Gay men living in the “Burbs” don’t wish to shake a hornets nest of Hetrosexuals next door.
    Ive know of many gay men (In my Flinders days) who always commented how much “We live in the City,Wouldn’t dare travel past Newtown,its not safe”
    Holding hands Rob? stealing a Kiss? try it in a Shopping Centre at Parramatta,Campbeltown,Liverpool,Penrith,It might be ok at marickville metro,But to the hetros in the west,your asking for trouble,shits ya doesnt it?
    thanxs

  8. @mark of sydney

    Just a tad of self-loathing there?

    Seriously, to label all gay males based on the antics of a few “scene queens” is doing nothing more than highlighting your own ingrained homophobia. I wonder, do you also believe that heterosexual couples don’t support straight marriage because they go out on weekends and “f*ck around” and have “one night stands”? Of course not.

    Your personal bias and perception is not supported by the results of surveys, or the support that same-sex marriage receives from both within and external to the homosexual community.

    It seems that you believe that homosexuals should all stay at home, and remain quite – the old the only good homosexual is an “unheard and unseen” homosexual.

    I’m guessing that you think it is outrageous that a same-sex couple flaunt their sexuality by daring to hold hands or share a quick kiss in public?

  9. Brendan of Wollongong your reaction to “There are vast quantities of Gays who oppose Gay Marriage” and you say prove it?
    Lets then..
    While there is a tiny fractioon of gays/lesbians like myself & partner who have our the commited relationship ceromony the LARGE majority of gay men in Australia have no care in the world for Gay Marriage,why?
    Because their to busy fucking around in casual one-night to a “couple of hours” stands.
    Gay men dont care if you look like Brad Pitt (At 25) or a Male model,THEY are not interested in hanging around,they only want a FUCK then they piss-off.There “Majority” of gay men in Sydney are not interested in a Relationship let alone Gay Marriage,the closest they seem to go is a Casual “Fuck-Buddy” as Nobody” is ever good enough for them.Also a Boyfriend/Husband would take the thrill out of going out and being “Seen” on the scene.
    These words are sicking,I hated saying it,but its our fault that we are sending this message to the Hetro community that we are not Interested in settling down into “Marriage” but rather have one Party after another,Its hard to be taken seriously isn’t it?
    Thanks

  10. I never said marriage substantially improves our standing in society. How on earth did you get that? Marriage is a travesty for heterosexuals, that’s why fewer and fewer of them do it, and of those that do the subsequent divorce rate is around 50%. Yet you people talk about it in such lofty terms. I don’t get it.

    I agree totally in the right of the individual to build a life how they want to, but that requires freedom. Freedom to be different. Freedom to be yourself. Throughout the history of civilisation, marriage was never about freedom. And anything that requires a license from a government is the polar opposite of freedom.

  11. I never said marriage can cure all societies ills, and I can’t see how I even implied that in my tone. I am speaking about the right of the individual to build a life how they want to, and that their sexuality is irrelevant to whether or not they use marriage to solemnize and improve their relationships. You seem to believe that unless marriage substantially improves our standing within society, then this discriminatory law should not be changed. I acknowledge that marriage won’t stop gay suicides, depression, community discrimination. However, couldn’t your argument against legalising gay marriage be used as easily against decriminalisation, anti-discrimination protection, and de facto partnerships? Just because these didn’t prevent gay oppression doesn’t mean that they haven’t radically changed what it is like to be gay in 1984 compared to now- their implementation reflecting the profound shift in public opinion towards the queer population? Really, should we do nothing and just accept our misery as a condition of being gay? Surely our rights today were achieved by doing something rather than doing nothing? Only by removing legal discrimination can we truly work towards the elimination of homophobia- legalised discrimination is a legitimisation for the community to hate and descriminate. I think that is what the bulk of younger gay people want- to be treated the same as their age group regardless of their sexuality- the lack of recognition and acceptance by the law is a form of stigma which labels them as abnormal and which fuels hate and their own self loathing, self abuse and suicide. Inequality before the law is among the more dehumanising things society can do to one individual.

  12. @ David Thatcher.

    You talk as if marriage is some cure-all for societies ills. How does that explain the high divorce rate? 25 years ago when homosexual acts were decriminalised in NSW the assumption was that bullying, violence, suicides etc. would become a thing of the past. We know it hasn’t. Life is never that simple. If you really believe marriage can achieve what decriminalisation didn’t then I’m all ears. But please, no false or naive assumptions.

  13. Quoth *Not In My Bedroom* :

    “There are vast quantities of Gays who oppose Gay Marriage”

    Vast quantities? Please qualify. Prove it.

    Should the rights and choices of all gays be decided by the contrarianism of some gays? Of course not. No more than the rights and choice of all gays should be determined by an apparently noisy minority of anti-egalitarian heterosupremacists and unrepresentative overly influential religious lobbyists. This is Australia. Our laws should fairly reflect the broader needs and wants of all Australians, not just those with a narrow, predominantly religious, view of what marriage ought to be.

    “There is really no issue in my mind with Polygomy.”

    Then perhaps you’re not thinking it through very deeply. Try again ;)

    “[Heterosexual marriage] is very much a cultural thing of today in Australia, whereas Slavery was out a long time ago.”

    Just because something is a “cultural thing of today” doesn’t make it fair and right for today. It is unambiguously cruel and nasty – and contrary to political claims of legal equality in a most barefaced hypocritical way – to deny lawful same-sex couples the equal right of marrying the person they love.

  14. I get their argument but they are mistaking us for the Church of the Latter Day Saints; or the 6th century Gnostic Christians, who believed in free love, but that was in the context of genocide by the Western Christian (Roman) Church… The ACL are totally hypocritical on this, given that the Roman Church has Same Sex Liturgies of Wedded Bliss in its filing cabernets, and there are gay martyred Saints and everything… They can’t hide their history forever…

  15. Michelle Wright

    Regarding adoption.

    The sad reality is, that with the best of intentions, institutions do not replace a loving home. We have seen government report, after government report, of the abuse that goes on in institutions.

    There are children who no person wants. You are sitting back allowing children to spend a childhood with no love. I and others have not been prepared to do that, we have advocated for change.

    The Forgotten Generation Report tells of many religious institutions, such as the Catholic Church, that simply killed children, raped children, had them damaged for life, and tried not to pay compenstation.

    I know of one person who does not have any natural knuckles as they had to be replaced as the Nuns made her hang all the washing on the line for the institution. Over and over, year after year.

    Do you think Cardinal Pell would pay for the operations? No. So how do such people spend their days, well trying to stop Same-Sex Marriage. Because that is a vehicle that the Catholic Church is using to stop debate about what has gone on. Many good and decent Catholics are just as frustrated as we are by all this.

    The best home, is a home for a child that has love. If we make it just about the sexuality of people we have truly lost the plot.

  16. Michelle Wright.

    Michelle, a straight boy has been given over to me to be educated in life social skills, by his anxious mother.
    The boys father was killed in another of those evil, heterosexual, religious/oil wars that are all too frequent these days.

    Have taught him to read, write, drive a car, swim and all those other, so called manly things. He has been issued a School Certificate here in Queensland, but is unable to spell the simplest words or do simple maths. In fact, he is unable to get a job or a Girlfriend despite being devastatingly handsome.

    He never had a backyard to play in, and almost went insane during the Brisbane floods. There was no electricity for five days in West End, so his Mobile Phone and Computer were not available. (Get depressed}.

    He can say, I love you, but is much like the kids of today, obsessed by brand names, consumerism, contaminated by the High Priests of Religion, and wants it all now without working for it.

    Ah, the big problem is, how to make him unafraid of women.
    He is like many heterosexual men, afraid to approach girls. Doesn’t have the skills to do it either. He went to a State School in West End run by heterosexuals, and not too far from the local Mosque. He speaks to language of that school yard. “Do you want to F**k now? There are too many Gay’s in this school”.

    Michelle, I have three other straight juniors to help with social issues also, all from Heterosexual Marriages.
    Myself, I would have been safer on the streets than with my own violent, Catholic Parents.

    It always takes a loving Gay to educate a stray.

  17. I don’t speak on behalf of all GLBT people, and I never said that marriage ought to be compulsory so they can integrate into the community. However, I recognize both that the majority of gay people are not tied particularly to the queer community and that most grow up in the suburbs. So, respectfully, its plain to see that GLBT people deserve the right to be a part of their original community if they choose. You appear to promote separation of GLBT people from the wider community- that ought to be your personal decision and your lack of support for same sex marriage rights for others should not be your means of imposing such separation on all of us. Instead, I commend the brave actions of GLBT people who would rather confront the homophobia and discrimination of their original communities, and demand acceptance and equal treatment within them. We are not different, our sexualities are, and as individuals our community helps to raise us and define our personalities. What marriage will do is that it will let gay people be who they want to be, normal, hardworking suburban Australians who just happen to be gay. There is no reason to disconnect ourselves from our families, friends and old lives because we were born different from the others. I think it is pretty unfair of you to assume all gay people have an interest in not being a part of their communities’ traditions where they would be accepted, and that by not supporting gay marriage you should seek to deprive people of a choice as to exercising their opinion on getting married yet continue to give straight couples a choice and allow civil law to discriminate against us because we were born gay.

  18. Michelle Wright

    It is a feeble argument to say no to Same-Sex Marriage due to children.

    The Marriage Act does not say it is a legal requirement to have children. I know of many heterosexual couples who do not have children and their relationship is just as valid as the next couple. I have also known Same-Sex couples who have children and they do a bloody good job despite the attitudes of some. All this is not to mention the many single parents who also do a bloody good job.

    There would be millions of children around the world born to Same-Sex couples by now. This has gone on for many years. Last time I checked, parenting is about your ability to provide a safe and loving home, not your sexuality. That is why many Christian groups even foster out difficult children to Same-Sex couples, and single people. Check the advertisements out.

    Terrorist can get married, so can mass murderers, the only requirement is to be heterosexual. All of these people can also have children. The greater threat to children is clearly not a loving decent couple getting married. In the animal kingdom even same-sex attracted swans have been known to raise the young even when it is not theirs.

    Scientist can replicate Same-Sex attracted fruit flies, and lesbian mice, but they have no cure us of ignorance.

  19. Michelle

    Chidren do not grow up solely with only their parents influnce. I’m a lesbian. I have two sons. The boys Grandfather has a wonderful relationship with them, so does their’s Aunt’s husband, not to mention the handfull of husbands from our straight friends. They may have two women as parents, but they are not lacking in adult male role models either.

  20. To the editor: yes, but single parenthood (though I take my hat off to them) is not the ideal either.

    Editor’s Note: I am sure all those single parents out there will be pleased to hear that.

  21. @ David Thatcher.

    It was John Howard’s government that banned same-sex marriage. I have never voted Liberal so I fail to see how I – with this single issue – could be imposing my political agenda onto others.

    The rest of your post is an insult to GLBT people because it assumes marriage is necessary for them to be accepted in the ‘community at large’ or to ‘lead the same life as anybody else’.

    One day I might log on here and read an argument for marriage that isn’t based on false and insulting assumptions.

  22. I just want to say – what about the kids? If same-sex marriage is allowed, then at some point, adoption by same-sex couples will also be allowed. How do kids in that kind of a family learn about how to relate to both of the sexes? What can two guys teach a young girl about how to deal with menstruation and physical development or likewise, what can two girls teach a teenage boy about being a man? What can a boy learn from two men about how to relate to women or vice versa? The best family situation is still one male and one female in parental roles for the kids.

    Editor’s Note: Michelle, same-sex adoption is already permitted in NSW. And what does marriage have to do with being a parent? It has been a long time since the two were mutually exclusive. The ever-growing number of single parents is testament to that.

  23. To those who believe that marriage should wither away and die, surely you can assist that yourselves by not getting married? Is it really necessary to support bans on same sex marriage which not only inculcate legal discrimination but which involve you imposing your political agenda on people who may see themselves tied not so much to the gay community but the community at large and don’t want their sexuality define who their friends are, where they live or generally the rest of their lives. Basically, you are in virulent opposition to GLBT people, most of whom grew up in the suburbs, most of whom are no different to anybody else except for sexuality, to have the right to lead the same life as anybody else would.

  24. To Daniel

    Wet myself laughing at your comments. You made my day.
    Thought to myself, you might not be married, because you cannot indulge in such luxuries as logic and Maths if you are, as per your narrow beliefs.

    Why do you think we who are married say, “Yes Dear, OK Dear”, when the old girl starts going off. How can you use your logic and mathematics then?

    Does a Carer of a Mentally Disabled person try to use Logic and mathematics every new day? No, he/she would go mad in trying to do so.

    Nobody knows what god is or anything about it. There are no words invented to-date to describe it either. The best explanation we have come to is, Mother Gia, a living whirling body, and the latest idea is, that it is conscious too.

    The trouble with a lot of people is, they view life through a stain glass window and with blinkers on.

    I agree with BAZ, Let marriage wither and fade away, and take the capital letter out of god.

  25. If the Marriage Act were amended to permit same sex marriage, and not amended elsewhere, bigamy would remain a ground for seeking a nullity of marriage, and otherwise it remains a criminal offence. The people in the Australian Christian Lobby (a misnomer becasue it is little more than an anti-gay organisation)are not only stupid, they don’t even bother to check their propaganda.

  26. Reading these comments certainly shows what a chequered and inconsistent history marriage has had. And this is meant to persuade us? On the contrary, who wants to be subject to something so rubbery it’s stretched or shrunk to fit the prevailing ‘culture’? Rise above it. Let marriage wither and fade so it’s only the religious fundamentalists practicing it. This is the 21st century, your personal life, relationships and sexuality do NOT need qualification from any government or church.

  27. Daniel

    There are many areas of discrimination in favour of married couples (I think that is greatly wrong). You still for instance cannot choose on all super funds where your money will go, only some funds have to follow what your direction is. This good paper has covered cases where a partner has died, they have been together for years, and the super company did not follow the directions of the partner who died. If you are placed in a Nursing home or hospital, your partner may still have no rights as it is up to the discretion of the nurse (I know as my partner runs hospitals). There is some legislation but who is to say you are a defacto? In reality your rights are often lost in translation, let alone those who are Same-Sex couples. Each state has different rules on what they accept. At a time of crisis you could well be expected to deal with this crap. The legislation covering nursing homes is Federal. The Federal government does not even give couples coverage in the equal opportunity act if they are Same-Sex attracted. The list goes on and on. Should I mention adoption even? All states have a different scheme. There are so many areas of discrimination against couples who are not married. Some companies such as Telstra, have recently removed over two hundred policies against Same-Sex couples. The law did not require them, but some companies want to be progresive and value all staff. It is strange when companies are starting to get ahead of governments in equality.

  28. I am very Gay Marriage full stop as I believe in equality.
    My question is lets say that It was officially approved and All of a sudden Gay/Lesbians men were marrying thier partners,Where are we to Live? The western suburbs? The South-West? North Shore?
    Were ever we live how long in Years,yes Years/Decades would we have to wait until we could walking into the local Shopping Centre,RSL,for example until we wouldn’t be threatned with Heckling/Verbal Abuse/Physical Abuse, Have an Audience of Starers or Just a person Smirking/giggling at us?
    So are we to live In Darlinghurst/Surry Hills/Newtown?
    I am for Gay Marriage,My partner and I had our Civil Union Ceromony 5 years ago,We live in safe area,our neighbours are fine,though we still get a few stares in the street from Others,We keep our nose clean,we dont wave a rainbow flag on a front door,we dont pash in the street,we ont throw it in our neighbours faces,BUT when and IF Gay Marriage goes Legal & The Mass Exodus from the Inner-City Gay ghetto’s of the GLBT Community paying $500+ to live in a shoebox per week,They will move to the western/south suburbs expecting acceptance now Gay Marriage is now legal,Expect an explosion of hate Crime for the Wider Hetro Community not wanting a large majority of Gay/Lesbians moving in next door as still reeling in shock how do we change the Aussie Culture?
    These things need planning,Didn’t mean to offend,would be nice to have gay neighbours,just don’t anyone to get hurt/abused/heckled,thanxs mark

  29. To Peter

    I’m not saying your views are wrong I’m just saying you can’t possibly know. If you were being serious about your astral path projection thing you said then why is Christianity so crazy when you believe you left your body and travelled the universe? Were you high? I choose my beliefs based on logic and mathematics. With an infinite amount of stars let alone planets it verges on impossible that life only evolved on earth. In regards to god I don’t subscribe to religion but I still believe in for lack of a better word god. It’s logical to me but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to question it like I question everything else in this world. Being objective is how a person becomes logical and dare I say wise. In this specific case of gay marriage, the glbt community has a right to the same laws and protections as a heterosexual couple. Although Dave can you please answer me a question. I am not homosexual and the only gay friends I have don’t care about gay marriage but to my understanding gay de-facto couples have the same legal rights to claim life insurance and benefits, same concessions when it comes to home loans and the such. So what is the problem? Is it just the right to get married or are there other legal ramifications I don’t know of? I don’t mean to offend I just want to be educated and please don’t think I’m arguing against gay marriage I’m not I support it whole heartedly.

  30. Not In My Bed Room

    I appreciate your view and feelings on the subject, but do not accept your arguments. There are over 1000 pieces of legislation that refer to marriage. It will take years and years to have a Civil Union that gets the same recognition in law. More then your lifetime and mine. There are so many pieces of legislation that have to be changed. But not only that, I of course want equal access to law. I do not pay half taxes.

    Marriage is a union of two people in the dictionary definition.
    Do I support a Church performing the ceremony, according to their tradition, not marrying my partner and I? Of course I do. It is not my business how the ceremony of Marriage is performed in a Church. Some Churches want us to have a wedding. I am not going to go into any Church and say marry me or else. Just like some Churches will not perform a wedding if someone is of a different religion.
    The debate about marriage, is not about the ceremony and who discriminates. The debate is about having your relationship recognized under law equally, giving equal access to all the benefits of marriage, like other loving couples have. Just a few years ago in Australia we did not accept many forms of marriage if they were not from the Church, now the government says you have your ceremony any way you want, what you understand to be marriage, just have a registered person to witness it. That is all it takes.

    Now I appreciate and love the institution of Marriage. It is not for everyone. But having an inclusive society has so much to gain. There are no second class weddings or citizens.

    The government has really got itself into a mess by trying to regulate the ceremony of marriage. Many Christians, Jewish People, Muslims and many other religions do not accept the government definition of Marriage at present. They only call a marriage a marriage if it is done according to their own faith. In effect if the marriage act is changed all these good traditions will not change. There is no debate about that.

    My brothers wedding was a Scottish one. The celebrant talked of the traditional wedding, how a community of people got together and had rituals such as walking under the broom. You were married once you did that. No government intervention. Marriage was owned by the community and belonged to the community. Each community decided what they would except. Some excepted Same-Sex couples. Same-Sex marriage has always been with us. From the 1850’s after the word Homosexual was invented, a wave of fundamentalism swept the word that we are still dealing with today. Even conservative Singapore has documented “Same-Sex marriage” just over one hundred years ago. Many countries had Same-Sex marriage. Marriage was owned by communities. There was no Big Brother telling us all what to do.

    As for vilification I have found that an easy guide is to change word gay to Aboriginal, Chinese, or women, and if what you say would not fit with these good people and be offensive, then of course gay people would be offended. I have friends who are not gay and I can joke about all sorts of things and no offence is taken as they are friends. But when John Laws abuses someone, with all his power and reach, calling them a Pillow Biter etc, then of course some people will be effected. He is not a mate, he is not close, you cannot tell him off. It can be a bit like Alan Jones and Cronulla. The words effect some people in a great way.

    The argument for marriage equality is about the common good. Strengthening Marriage, by making it more inclusive has so much to gain. I am only after a law that does not discriminate, a return to the community owning marriage. I am not changing how a particular church treats or accepts a marriage. In other countries that have removed the discrimination churches go on marrying people as they always have, and others get married as they always have. People did not stop marrying. In the papers of new weds, there was a couple of gay couples, but most were not. They were all smiling as any other couple. Society did not fall apart, the tradition of marriage is alive and well in these countries and has been strengthened. They no longer waist time and life debating discrimination.Couples get married who want to, and people have all moved on to debate other important issues.