Homosexual marriages legalized in Australia

Under the new laws, gay couples will be able to hold a legally recognised civil union ceremony in front of friends and family in the territory, which is home to the capital Canberra and the nation's parliament.

The region's legislators approved the bill, which moved by the local Greens party.

Andrew Barr, an ACT minister who is in a gay relationship, wept as he spoke in support of the bill.

"Love, trust and intimacy and commitment are found at the heart of all good relationships," Mr Barr later told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

"I'm proud that this parliament will send that signal that my relationship with Anthony is equal to any other."

The law was drafted so that it does not contravene national legislation which says that civil unions must not mimic marriage.

"We understand that this is not same-sex marriage," said Greens MP Shane Rattenbury, who drafted the bill.

"This legislation is another step along the road to full equality for same-sex couples in Australia, and we are delighted that the assembly has passed it today," he added.

However, the law could still be struck down by Australia's attorney-general, who overturned similar legislation in February 2008 on the grounds it broke national marriage laws.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/6545116/Gay-unions-made-legal-in-Australian-territory.html

[The homosexuals aren't still given the rights to adopt a child or get a child via artificial insemination.] 

good step forward

Absolute stupidity. 

But what can you expect of a left-wing government? They don't have time to fight for the economy but they sure have time to divide the country by forcing in ridiculous measures.

Why not legalize zoophilie next?

they should legalizeit! theyhave so many rights as a straigh couple have!

Why not legalize zoophilie next?

Because animals are unable to give consent to such acts. Humans, of age, and of sound mind are, and it seems reasonable to afford anyone the same rights given to others.

that in mind, I would be completely in favor of governments granting no special rights or privileges to couples of any sex, same or different. 

There's a certain moral barrier that a government provides.

Legalizing homosexuality lifts that barrier.

Equally a government doesn't legalize drugs just based on the fact that people choose to do it.

theyhave so many rights as a straigh couple have!

Why? Is a gay couple the same as a straight couple?

There's a certain moral barrier that a government provides.

Legalizing homosexuality lifts that barrier.

Equally a government doesn't legalize drugs just based on the fact that people choose to do it. 

But many have done exactly that, not because 'people do it', but because they possibly understand that perhaps the government should not be involved in what adults choose to do that doesn't infringe on the rights of others.   

theyhave so many rights as a straigh couple have!

Why? Is a gay couple the same as a straight couple? 

In what significant way (other than sex) are they not the same? 

that perhaps the government should not be involved in what adults choose to do that doesn't infringe on the rights of others.  

What right does it infringe on to take heroin or coccaine? 

The basis for the ban of narcotics is that it is personally harmful.

In what significant way (other than sex) are they not the same?

One union produces offspring, the other doesn't. 

One union is based and rooted in the commitment to family and society, as well as biological drives shared by most other people and nature's creation.

The other is based solely on sexual urges, no different than any other.

Scientifically a male has some production of progesteron and estradiol and a women produces testosterone/androgen. These gonad hormones are what induce the sex drive. Sex is a natural tendency, and so long as it doesn't harm a person it can't be prohibited.

Drugs are injurious to health and harmful. Just like a government has no rights to legalize suicide. You might argue about the VD risks, but with propers cautions these can be lowered. Not that in straight couples VD is a rarity.

hat perhaps the government should not be involved in what adults choose to do that doesn't infringe on the rights of others.  

What right does it infringe on to take heroin or coccaine? 

none, for the most part, which is my point. If you choose to use heroin or cocaine, it does not make me less free or hinder me in any way. When it does, I will start to be concerned about your personal choices.  

The basis for the ban of narcotics is that it is personally harmful.

I'm quite happy to let your parents worry about you harming yourself. I'd prefer the government not take on that role. 

In what significant way (other than sex) are they not the same?

One union produces offspring, the other doesn't. 

I think that's irrelevant to whether they should have the same privileges as others. Should we also then deny the rights of marriage or civil union to infertile couples, or to couples who are beyond child-bearing age? 

One union is based and rooted in the commitment to family and society, as well as biological drives shared by most other people and nature's creation.

No marriage then, for couples that cannot prove their commitment to family and community? Laws based on biological drives might seem to point towards legalizing polygamy as impregnating as many females as possible seems to be the biological imperative driving most males, including primates like ourselves. 

The other is based solely on sexual urges, no different than any other.

I think you could put many traditional marriages in that category. I also think that it's very misguided to think that same-sex relationships are based solely on sex.