Liberal premier backs gay marriage

[AiA in Atlanta]

So you can't actually say what rights are being denied to gays then?

They haven't been able to participate fully and openly in society just like blacks and women. It is the civil rights issue of our time. Other generations will have to work out the rest.

[IQS.RLOW]

So you can't actually say what rights are being denied to gays then?

They haven't been able to participate fully and openly in society just like blacks and women. It is the civil rights issue of our time. Other generations will have to work out the rest.

Its nothing like a civil rights issue. They have made great leaps forward in making their lifestyle socially acceptable. That doesn't mean that they should co-opt traditional heterosexual norms.

Ignoring the slippery slope only means you will stumble down it quicker.

[IQS.RLOW]

Do you have any objection to polygamous marriage?

[Black Orchid]

As I have said before, if the gay marriage argument is all about "two people who love each other" what stops the argument for "3-4-5 people who love each other"?

It's a can of minority worms that needs to be stuffed back in its box

That's an excellent and pertinent point. Wish I'd thought of it

[IQS.RLOW]

It's a point I have brought up for many years as the gay marriage debate has raged, yet not one protagonist has managed to answer without prevaricating or throwing strawmen around like a scarecrow at a gay strawman orgy...things like "next you will bring up someone wanting to marry a horse" ie the beastiality or inanimate object defence.

The reality is that marriage is between a man and woman. If you want a same sex union, you can have all the trimmings that go with marriage, including settlements and custody battles if you have manage to somehow procure a child.

You cannot have marriage.
It is not a civil right.
It is not discrimination
It is not analogous to women's rights or slavery

So get fucked poofters.

[AiA in Atlanta]

It is part of a broader civil rights issue. And I do think that generations to come will have to grapple with people asking to marry multiple partners and maybe even a dog or mule. But the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman is simply an agreement that can be changed, will be changed, no, is changing, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

[Rorschach]

As I have said before, if the gay marriage argument is all about "two people who love each other" what stops the argument for "3-4-5 people who love each other"?

It's a can of minority worms that needs to be stuffed back in its box

That's an excellent and pertinent point. Wish I'd thought of it

marriage hasn't always been about love and still isn't.
just because you love someone doesn't automatically mean you'll marry or have the "right" to marry.

[IQS.RLOW]

It is part of a broader civil rights issue. And I do think that generations to come will have to grapple with people asking to marry multiple partners and maybe even a dog or mule. But the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman is simply an agreement that can be changed, will be changed, no, is changing, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

No, it isn't part of a broader civil rights issue, it part of the progressive anti-establishment issues.

I didn't ask whether generations will have to grapple with polygamous marriage, I asked whether you have any objection to it. Do you?

Just because some governments cave in to vocal minorities for change, doesn't make that change right or the smart thing to do

[Rorschach]

[Rorschach]

Gay Marriage
Sarrah Le Marquand
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 04:42pm
*comments bolded

DECIDING to give up alcohol, or take up smoking, is a lifestyle choice. So too is the decision to become vegetarian, move to the seaside or cycle to work. But when flicking through a glossy catalogue to peruse the various “lifestyle choices” available, you’re unlikely to stumble upon the option of being gay.

Really? So which glossy magazine should one read to find Alcoholism or Teetotalism etc as a “lifestyle” choice? One shouldn’t be disingenuous and pretend product advertising is choosing a “lifestyle”. As for “gay lifestyle” magazines, have you never read; The Star Observer, Q Magazine, DNA, Boyz, or any number of glossy or online mags?

An individual’s sexuality is not an interest-free, buy-now-pay-later commodity. To airily dismiss it as a mere “lifestyle choice” is not only patronising but plain old intolerance disguised as common sense.

Well, no it’s not. But please go on.

Which is why heterosexual couples are rarely forced to endure glib comparisons of our long-term relationships with fashion accessories. Our right to fall in love with a member of the opposite sex is not only unquestioned, it’s celebrated. Irrespective of the romantic complications, mistakes and heartbreaks in which we become entangled, we’re never asked to justify our sexual orientation.

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?

That’s a given. Our birthright. Nature taking its course. It’s only in a same-sex scenario that the notion of “choice” suddenly enters the equation.

Yes it is a given and a natural thing. By the way, “choice” enters the equation in all aspects of human life.

It’s this sentiment that underpins much of the lingering opposition to gay marriage. What more convenient excuse to deny certain couples the same rights as everyone else than by insisting they have “chosen” to be excluded from mainstream society?

What sentiment? I’d have thought they are a part of mainstream society. A very small part of it, but none-the-less a part of it. Since Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman; legally, traditionally, religiously, linguistically… then choosing a same sex mate does exclude them from it. And yes… it is a “lifestyle” choice.

By that logic any amendment to the Marriage Act would simply be pandering to the whims of a minority.

Logic or not, given factually they are a minority it would be.

It’s certainly an effective means of discrediting same-sex unions without acknowledging the blatant double standards and hypocrisy in play.

There are no double standards or hypocrisy. There would be in gay marriage.

This isn’t about homophobia, anti gay marriage campaigners insist. Have your clubs, your cute TV shows, your parades. Even live together if you must.

True, it is not about homophobia.

But marriage? Sorry, that’s a union reserved for a man and a woman. Don’t ask why, it just is. Always has been, always will be.

Yes that is correct. No use calling an Apple and Orange or a Soccer ball a Golf ball, they just are… different. Always have been, always will be.

Even allowing for the painfully cautious approach that has increasingly come to characterise federal politics, it’s hard to understand the inaction of the major parties in the face of such flimsy reasoning.

Since when is being correct flimsy reasoning?

With polls suggesting a majority of Australians support gay marriage – and in the absence of any coherent or compelling case against it – their hesitation is inexplicable.

Polls? What was the question? Who was asked? All Australians? Perhaps the parties, know more about polling and the wider community than you?

“I have yet to hear a single reasonable and logical argument for denying marriage to couples of the same gender,” observes a gay friend.

Obviously doesn’t speak English, or spends too much time closeted in the gay community. Do you honestly think this friend has an unbiased opinion? I know many gays that don’t want to get married. In fact I’d say they are a majority within the minority, they chose this “lifestyle”.

“Anyone is perfectly entitled to say ‘it doesn’t feel right’ or ‘it doesn’t accord with my religious beliefs’, but such sentiments are no longer a basis for discrimination – and haven’t been since the 60s – for any other significant minority.

Really?

“I mean, honestly,” he says, “what is there to be afraid of here?”

Fear has nothing to do with it.

Yet fear is the operative word. Not only for our voter-backlash wary leaders, but for the supposed defenders of marriage. Those who like to bleat about its sanctity, but who clearly suspect it is weak enough to crumble under the slightest provocation.

No it is not. Why is mentioning the sanctity of marriage “bleating,” have you an anti-religious bias?

You can’t have much faith in its resilience if you genuinely believe it’s a institution that will be undermined by extending its definition to include devoted couples who happen to be of the same sex. If domestic violence, infidelity and an escalating divorce rate have not tainted the exchanging of marital vows, why should this particular prospect prove so damaging?

Oh my, are you suggesting that gay couples would not be subject to such things? How disingenuous of you.

Last week two 17-year-olds decided to tie the knot just days after meeting during schoolies celebrations on the Gold Coast. Although too young to be legally wed, there is nothing to stop them from making it official when they turn 18 in a matter of months.
A ceremony most notable for the wine cask that took centre stage during the engagement doesn’t do much for the reputation of holy matrimony.
But the tradition of marriage has withstood far greater challenges than a couple of tipsy teens. It will even survive the likes of Charlie Sheen, currently back in court following his umpteenth arrest.
Multiple ex-wives and a domestic violence rap sheet? Now that’s a dubious “lifestyle choice”. Yet there are no legislative obstacles to prevent Sheen – with three acrimonious divorces under his belt – from remarrying as many times as he likes.

You are trying it on aren’t you. Are you suggesting that the vast majority of heterosexual marriages follow the extremes of the individuals you just selected?

With the issue certain to resurface in federal parliament in the new year, it’s time to reposition how the debate over gay marriage is framed.

So how would you frame it? Honourable Members it’s time we changed the definition of marriage. It’s time we changed the traditional status of what marriage is about. After thousands of years of accepted understanding, it’s time for change.

What’s at stake is the right of all consenting adults to legally wed, irrespective of our individual quirks, preferences and beliefs.

I have no problem with gay couples having the same legal rights as hetero couples. But let’s not fool ourselves… same sex union does not equate to opposite sex union… and marriage is for the latter and has been since Adam was a boy. Why do some gays want to marry? Is it jealousy? Insecurity? I haven’t heard a single reasonable logical argument for it. Have your civil union, if you must, but just don’t try to call it marriage.

Some marriages prove lasting while others do not. Many result in the birth of children, but not all. Marriage has never been a one-size-fits-all undertaking.

Are you now trying to say the birth of children and the formation of a family is inconsequential in the decision to marry? Are you trying to say that because some heterosexuals cannot have children that makes them in their misfortune the same as being gay? Continually trying to pick the exception to the rule does not make an argument for change.

The onus should be on those who would deny this right to all Australians to convince the rest us what they know about marriage that we do not.

No… the onus is on those proposing change.