You might like to read my latest article dealing with Board of Deputies Resolution.
http://www.jwire.com.au/board-of-deputies-provide-many-reasons-to-vote-no/

Still waiting for you to detail the “insensitive comments and assumptions” that I made.

It is insensitive and offensive to make a claim then refuse to substantiate it when challenged on many occasions.

David, you are swimming against the tide. Just overnight the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies passed a motion supporting civil marriage equality, with only one person voting against the motion. That level of support speaks volumes to just how out of touch you are.

Michael

You are still to detail the “insesnsitive comments and assumptions” that I made that apparently offended you. Please do so.

Your latest comment is pure speculation because neither you nor anyone else knows what is to be included in the new legislation. That is what makes this Survey such a waste of time – not to mention the $120 million thrown to the wind.

Voters are being asked to sign on the dotted line without knowing or understanding what they might be signing up to.

David, the entire tenor of your conversation is insensitive.

Touche means snap, voila, point made.

I don’t believe you acknowledged this statement:

>> In any successful marriage equality bill, the commonly used term “spouse” is likely to be included alongside the terms “husband” and “wife”, and the term “man and woman” is likely to be replaced with the term “two people”. None of this seems controversial from a legal perspective. <<

Before we continue our discussion further – I would ask that you respond to three matters that you have continued to ignore in your last four posts:

1. Do you agree with my meaning of “touche” – a term used by you
2. You accused me of making “insensitive comments and assumptions” but refuse to say what they are.
3. You have failed to tell me what original questions of mine you answered that I have not acknowledged.

David, you want to define marriage by the ability to reproduce biologically. But that is a frail argument, borne in an argument of bigotry, because marriage is currently open to people who cannot reproduce biologically and it is open to people who choose not to reproduce biologically. On that basis those people who marry or who do not produce offspring should have their marriage licences cancelled effective immediately. Similarly for those people who stop producing children, on the argument you present.

But your argument is really very illogical, because marriage is not a prerequisite for reproduction, as evidenced by unmarried parents, or single parents. Similarly for same-sex couples who parent their biological children.

Ultimately David, marriage is not about parenting, because as a lawyer you know that there is nothing in the Marriage Act about parenting or biological reproduction. So why you insist on marriage being about parenting, in 2017, is a bewildering state of being.

Michael

Regretfully you again ignore or refuse to respond to three matters I put to you. Does this mean you have no answers?

Yes – it is biological reproduction that distinguishes marriags from same-sex unions.

That you and Gregory choose to adopt a different path in life to that presently defined by marriage is certainly your choice to make.

Your relationship should certainly have all the same legal protections as marriage. That is the equality you are certainly entitled to.

But do not try to appropriate to your relationship a term which has been used to define the relationship between a man and woman for centuries.

The survey being currently conducted would have been overwhelmingly accepted if it had asked:
“Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples or indeterminate sex-couples to enter into a legal union?”

We are however unfortunately now stuck with answering the question put to us. That is the real pity of this $120 million splurge into continuing uncertainty – no matter what the result.

“But they are different relationships. ”

No, not really. I love my husband. We look after each other. We care for each other. We spend time with each other’s families and friends. He has two adult children, one at uni, the other soon to be married. has depression and is studying an MBA. I work full-time and have a mortgage.

We want legal recognition of our relationship so when either of us is in hospital due to illness or approaching death we can make the necessary legal decisions for each other without complication.

Marriage is the way most people take care of that issue. But you want us to have “separate but equal”, which isn’t equal.

So when you say “they are different relationships” I ask you to put your rhetoric to one side and tell me why we, with me at the age of 48 and Gregory at the age of 54, should be discriminated against because you think we should be capable of biological reproduction in order to be as good as you.

Michael

I think there are a few matters that you need to reply to that you seemed to have deliberately overlooked
1. Do you agree with my meaning of “touche” – a term used by you
2. You accused me of making “insensitive comments and assumptions” but refuse to say what they are.
3. You have failed to tell me what original questions of mine you answered that I have not acknowledged.

Please respond to these three matters.

For you to call a couple denied the right to adopt a child as a “miserable example” and dismissed with a “feh” indicates your lack of humanity. You should be ashamed of yourself. You certainly are not doing your cause any good.

Here is another example of what happened in England that could happen here:
“Equalities minister Justine Greening, has insisted that churches must be made to: ‘Keep up with modern attitudes’. Likewise, the Speaker of the House of Commons, a position supposedly defined by its political neutrality, had this to say: I feel we’ll only have proper equal marriage when you can bloody well get married in a church if you want to do so, without having to fight the church for the equality that should be your right’.

You might be happy to see churches in Australia put in this position. I am not.

Once again you show that you apparently fail to read or understand my comments when you ask:
“Why are you so concerned about homosexual people getting married. It reeks of intolerance.”

I can only repeat what I have already told you that you are apparently unwilling to accept:
“I state once again for your edification that human dignity in same sex unions should be protected in exactly the same way as human dignity in marriages between men and women are protected. But they are different relationships. The attempt to hijack the term “marriage” to equally apply to these two sets of different relationships can only lead to the kind of conduct that has occurred in England since the English Parliament made that decision in 2014. Surely we should be prepared to learn from England’s experience and not repeat the same mistakes.”

Same-sex couples have been getting married around the world since around the year 2000. The number of married same-sex couples is not insignificant. Now over a billion people on this planet have access to same-sex marriage. You have less than a handful of miserable “examples” which you use to demonstrate the sky is falling in and the sloped are getting more slippery. Feh.

Where is your concern for the multitudes of children of abusive heterosexual parents? Why are you so concerned about homosexual people getting married. It reeks of intolerance.