Cross-Post: Parnell McGuinness: Same Sex Marriage ‘yes’ campaign could lose if mismanaged

Australians who have not yet made up their minds on same-sex marriage are now embarking on a “journey” which many politicians only recently completed. It looks like most will arrive at the same destination, but without the whiff of political expediency.

Still, despite the polls, if the journey is mismanaged the “yes” campaign could lose. To take one example, this could happen if people begin to feel that by extending marriage rights, their own right to hold private religious views will be diminished.

Or if ordinary Australians are made to feel they can’t voice their concerns without being howled down and silenced as bigots, they might deliver a Brexit-style silent revolt.

Likewise if same-sex marriage campaigners allow themselves to believe that the case for extending marriage equality is obvious and doesn’t need to be argued. It may feel obvious in the wealthy, liberal and largely white inner-city suburbs, where sexual taboos were done away with long ago.

But remember until as recently as the 1970s pretty much all sex was taboo. Even heterosexual relationships were only socially acceptable within marriage.

Unwed mothers were pressured to give up their children to married couples. No-fault divorce wasn’t available in Australia until 1975.

Before that, people would sometimes pretend they’d been adulterous to get out — ironically, the first major sexual taboos were smashed by heterosexuals who were desperate not to be married.

In 1975 the first Australian state decriminalised homosexuality. Homosexual practice wasn’t decriminalised in Tasmania until 1997.

This is shockingly recent, but it’s a good reminder that we did hold these attitudes and taboos — and that they have adjusted and changed within our lifetime.

Australia has always lagged in the Western world, possibly because of our large immigrant population, who often bring with them and maintain socially conservative attitudes about sex and the role of women, among other things.

In many non-Western countries these taboos still exist and they remain strong in many new immigrant communities.

But it’s worth remembering that we are all immigrants from a not-too-distant past.

Taboos hold us at an emotional level. Changing legislation is not enough to change people’s hearts and minds. Even when it is plainly the right thing to do, there is still a job of persuasion to be done.

It should help the “yes” campaign that it can build itself around a deeply conservative proposition to restore family values.

Campaigners must realise that just yelling louder in their existing echo chambers will have no impact.

And lashing out at people who disagree — precisely those whose minds need to be changed by the “yes” campaign — will be counter-productive.

For their part, conservatives should embrace the opportunity to broaden their base. It has been a very, very long time since part of society last clamoured for access to a conservative institution rather than freedom from one.

The conservative mindset prefers the stability of a regularised, public commitment over the less clear de facto model.

Stable domestic situations promote the wellbeing of the children in a household, as well as reducing the potential for welfare fraud.

Both of these arguments carry conservative weight, but children are a priority.

Children are increasingly born into irregular situations created by parents of all sexual orientations. Offering parents who want it a way to create more stability for children can only be a positive and is an inherently conservative thing to do. To put it another way, far from undermining it, extending marriage equality to same-sex relationships will likely make society more conservative, not less.

That said, it will be a tough time for same-sex couples between now and November 7.

It will also be tough for people who have doubts about extending traditional marriage to same-sex couples. The trolls from all sides will be out in force, trying to polarise the debate.

But there’s a silver lining.

For a couple of months, Australians will turn their minds to the topic of why extending equal franchise to people whose opinion — or in this case orientation — you don’t necessarily share is the right thing to do.

And make no mistake about it, tolerance is a two-way street.

We can’t forbid someone from being religious any more than we can forbid them fancying the same sex. A popular saying about gay marriage has been that if you don’t support them, you shouldn’t get one.

Well, the same thing applies in the other direction: if you don’t agree with the pastor, don’t go to the church. How people behave to one ­another when they interact is more important than what they think or even say in private. ­Actions trump words.

If the “yes” campaign accepts this, and engages respectfully and on a personal level to dispel doubts, we will come out of this knowing why we are a nation that extends the symbolic institution of marriage to all consenting couples.

Political correctness will have nothing to do with it.

Political correctness is the preserve of mealy mouthed pleaders doing obedience to an establishment view.

People — and politicians — who take up attitudes based on political correctness are capable of shedding them again when fashions change, or the posture is no longer useful. But an unforced and considered opinion sticks.

We all have something to gain by conducting this debate with respect and in good faith. If the goal is a freer and more stable society, for once there can be winners all around.

This op-ed first appeared in The Daily Telegraph.

This entry was posted in Cross Post. Bookmark the permalink.

129 Responses to Cross-Post: Parnell McGuinness: Same Sex Marriage ‘yes’ campaign could lose if mismanaged

  1. Fat Tony

    Well, Sinc, that’s the theory for a proper debate.
    Ain’t gonna happen tho, is it?

  2. bollux

    I suggest Sinclair, that if you expect the Left to be respectful of anything, you live in la-la land. This is not about “equality”, it’s about destruction of our society by destroying yet another of it’s foundations. The few homosexuals who see themselves in a caring, monogamous relationship, are just seen as useful idiots by the Left. Changing the meaning of a word like marriage to encompass the views of a tiny minority, is just the Lefts way of bullying the silent majority who pay all the bills for these activists. The question should be, when the Left have destroyed the true meaning of marriage, what will they turn on next?

  3. Roger

    And make no mistake about it, tolerance is a two-way street.

    You’ve not been paying attention, Parnell.

    Any notion of tolerance will be smashed once Labor comes to power.

  4. jupes

    Offering parents who want it a way to create more stability for children can only be a positive and is an inherently conservative thing to do.

    Bollocks on stilts.

    There is nothing conservative about raising children in homosexual households.

  5. Combine Dave

    If the proYes polling was accurate they wouldn’t oppose a plebiscite and denying voters a voice.

    Sad.

  6. Nathan

    What do other Cats think the next targets of the ‘progressives’ will be? Constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians would have to be #1 but I am interested to know what will be targets 2 through 10. I imagine there will be a combination of small targets (dropping the Lord’s Prayer from the opening of Parliament?) and large (death/inheritance taxes, ‘hate’ media restrictions?)

    Keen to hear your thoughts.

  7. braddles

    It has been a very, very long time since part of society last clamoured for access to a conservative institution rather than freedom from one.

    In a nutshell, that is why I don’t trust the Yes campaign. In just 20 years, they have totally altered their approach to this issue. Don’t kid yourself – it is not because of some new-found respect for conservative institutions.

  8. Botswana O'Hooligan

    Experience gained over almost four score of years has taught me to agree 100% with bollux for if a logical person gives an illogical person an inch they then want a mile and so it is with SSM for we don’t know where it will end up. Many heterosexual people are not married and live ordinary everyday lives, have kids who are ordinary kids and who don’t differ one jot from kids born into a married union and everyone is happy and in fact the unmarried couple are deemed to be in a partnership, a word that galls me somewhat, but I am an old married man, albeit a few times. Why can’t these homosexual or lesbian people be the same and just be “partners” for all of us know at least one same sex union couple who do just that for in reality the bottom line is that marriage doesn’t make for, or detract from, a union between two people, it never has and never will.

  9. Nathan

    Adding one to my own list. The destruction of Australia Day on Jan 26. See the story on the leftards of the Yarra City Council.

  10. C.L.

    Same Sex Marriage ‘yes’ campaign could lose if mismanaged

    Why would a loss = mismanagement?
    That’s left-wing rhetoric 101.
    ‘When we lose, it’s because we didn’t educate the public enough.’

    The trolls from all sides will be out in force, trying to polarise the debate.

    LOL. That’s what a debate is: a polarised contest.

  11. John64

    Same Sex Marriage ‘yes’ campaign could lose if mismanaged.

    The ALP has already stated it will ignore the result of the postal ballot if it returns a NO vote.

    If homosexual marriage is not law when the next ALP government comes into power, it will be legislated in the first 100 days. This could easily be less than a year after the public said NO.

    Dreyfus admitted as much on Sunday morning “this is clear Labor Party policy.”

  12. Arky

    ironically, the first major sexual taboos were smashed by heterosexuals who were desperate not to be married.

    ..
    That has worked wonderfully well, hasn’t it?
    No bastard in their right mind marries a western woman.
    Not if you want to keep your house and super and see your children.
    Everyone has now seen someone get completely taken apart by no fault divorce. Some of us have had mates blow their brains out over it.

  13. Driftforge

    If the “yes” campaign accepts this, and engages respectfully and on a personal level to dispel doubts

    And now for our next hypothetical reality. They are utterly incapable of this.

  14. A Lurker

    If the “yes” campaign accepts this, and engages respectfully and on a personal level to dispel doubts…

    Yeah, nah.
    It’s very inconvenient how cold hard reality so often collides with idealistic utopian fantasy.

  15. old bloke

    What would a “Yes” vote result in? What legislation would follow?

    How can anyone vote “Yes” without knowing what resulting legislation would go through Parliament. The Government has broadly outlined the legislation they would put to Parliament (protections for religious ministers and celebrants), but they can’t guarantee passage of their legislation through the Senate.

    A “Yes” vote is signing a blank cheque, we have no assurances what will happen to it. I don’t hand out signed blank cheques.

  16. Craig

    I’m saying no just to piss off the bigoted and intolarent tossers the yes campaigners have become.

  17. The conservative mindset prefers the stability of a regularised, public commitment over the less clear de facto model.

    Stable domestic situations promote the wellbeing of the children in a household, as well as reducing the potential for welfare fraud.

    Both of these arguments carry conservative weight, but children are a priority.

    Children are increasingly born into irregular situations created by parents of all sexual orientations. Offering parents who want it a way to create more stability for children can only be a positive and is an inherently conservative thing to do. To put it another way, far from undermining it, extending marriage equality to same-sex relationships will likely make society more conservative, not less.

    Same-sex relationships don’t actually produce any children. What your presenting above is the principle reason to regularize relationships between men and women even though you were a few minutes earlier saying,

    But remember until as recently as the 1970s pretty much all sex was taboo. Even heterosexual relationships were only socially acceptable within marriage.

    I think if this debate is to go anywhere the pro-SS’M’ side has to put aside slogans like ‘extending marriage rights’, ‘marriage equality’, and so on, because they do not justifiably apply to relationships between the same sex. It is pure question-begging.

  18. anonandon

    Nathan

    My guess is polygamy.

  19. RAZOR

    garbage in – garbage out. The author shows a great lack of understanding the concept of democratic equality. One person one vote on issues of morality and the rights of children.
    The next target will be marriage down to 14 yo and polygamy to suit Islam and further break down the family unit in order to create global citizens. The Gay lobby is being used by the cultural marxists.

  20. Confused Old Misfit

    The only gay marriage I will recognize is that of a deliriously happy heterosexual male and a deliriously happy heterosexual female!

  21. This is from Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd ed.):

    Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, Is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

    It’s perplexing that the pro-SSM case can think they can erase the foundation upon which marriage is founded, sex, all the while pretending that you could build a conservative case over the debris.

  22. notafan

    But remember until as recently as the 1970s pretty much all sex was taboo. Even heterosexual relationships were only socially acceptable within marriage.

    Considering the size of the average family (in the absence of contraception) that is pretty hilarious.

    Not to mention where is the evidence that (alleged) more sex equals more happiness?

    Milo is very good with pointing out that women have progressively become less happy since the destruction of sexual ‘taboos’.

    Marriage requires consummating, that is a scientific fact.

  23. rebel with cause

    Is there any evidence that marriage confers more stability on homosexual relationships? Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for more than a decade.

    There are some powerful lessons from Canada too, none more so than this piece on the assault on natural rights and freedoms that will follow the legalisation of gay marriage.

  24. Andre Lewis

    Funded or not any campaigning for the yes or no case is largely irrelevant as most people have made up their mind by now and simply want the whole topic to disappear.

  25. Seco

    So far proponents of homosexual marriage have only argued that to disagree with them is to be a homophobic bigot. As for the argument that gays marrying will strengthen a conservative tradition, ha ha haah!

    This is just means to makd the abnormal normal. Same wiyh “Safe Schools” is just a means to legitimize people like Roz Ward.

  26. Senile Old Guy

    A COUNCIL in Melbourne’s north will give free office space to same-sex marriage campaigners — while blacklisting opponents of marriage equality. Greens-dominated Darebin Council will also issue a warning to local churches not to campaign against same-sex marriage.

    And there goes freedom of speech on the issue of marriage equality. That did not take long.

    It will allow ‘yes’ campaigners to use council facilities and services for free in the lead up to the postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage. But ‘no’ campaigners will be barred from using council facilities, according to an urgent motion to be voted on next week.

    How very diverse!

    Anyone surprised by this does not know how the left works.

  27. johanna

    As I have said here before, I don’t give a rat’s about who “marries” anybody else, as long as they are consenting adults. It’s none of my business.

    That said, I will be voting NO! in this poll because of the bullying, dishonest and condescending tactics of the Yes proponents.

    Nobody has proved that gay couples in civil unions suffer any disadvantage. Indeed, all such disadvantages have been explicitly removed.

    Nobody is stopping gay couples who are entering into a civil union from wearing lacy white dresses and being Bridezillas.

    A year ago I would have voted Yes. But the exposure to the sunlight of the proponents has changed my mind. No doubt this is why they pulled out all the stops to prevent public debate.

  28. Seco

    Given 1 in 3 homosexual relationships are subject to domestic violence isn’t homosexual marriage giving domestic violence the green light? Where’s Rosie Batty in putting forward the “no” case?

  29. Greens-dominated Darebin Council will also issue a warning to local churches not to campaign against same-sex marriage.

    Please make it so. It will be manna from Heaven for those pleading the No case.

  30. Cannibal

    Children are increasingly born into irregular situations created by parents of all sexual orientations.

    Yeah what a plus that’s been for society.
    What a horrid outlook for the children of this country – in the future no child will ever be removed from their abusive “irregular situation”. That’s worked out so well for Aboriginals hasn’t it.

  31. Rococo Liberal

    What johanna said

  32. Lysander

    This “guest author” is drunk, high or both.

  33. Empire

    Children are increasingly born into irregular situations created by parents of all sexual orientations. Offering parents who want it a way to create more stability for children can only be a positive and is an inherently conservative thing to do. To put it another way, far from undermining it, extending marriage equality to same-sex relationships will likely make society more conservative, not less.

    Lefistry or cuckservatism? You be the judge.

  34. notafan

    This “guest author” is drunk, high or both.

    Too kind Lysander

  35. Cynic of Ayr

    Oh the “Yes” campaign has succeeded admirably among my circle of friends, and even bigger circle of acquaintances. The more they whine and scream, the more they convince us.
    The intolerance, the hate, the insults, the antics of the seven or so Liberal MPs ramming their lifestyle as better than heterosexual, has convinced us without doubt, nor remorse, to vote “No”
    Any glimmer of acceptance has been completely erased, and for this I thank the Gay Lobby, the Labor Party. the Greens, and every other sad soul who attempted to convince us. Thank you for your revelations.

  36. C.L.

    As I have said here before, I don’t give a rat’s about who “marries” anybody else, as long as they are consenting adults. It’s none of my business.

    Of course it’s your business. Marriage is and always has been a public institution. Its public nature is one of its defining characteristics, in fact. If you mean you don’t care if two homosexuals pretend to marry each other according to ad hoc ‘rites’ ginned up by a friend or a Uniting Church ‘minister’ or something, then, sure. Nobody can object to what two people pretend to do in their own time.

  37. johanna

    As some Cats may know, I recently moved from the Glorious Democratic Peoples Republic of the ACT to the slightly less Glorious etc demos of Queanbeyan, NSW.

    As I am keen to vote on the upcoming SSM question, as well as in future elections, I logged on to the Electoral Commission site to change my address.

    To verify your identity, you have to have either a current passport or a current driver’s licence.

    A driver’s licence, FFS? Of course, there are no dodgy drivers licences about.

    Since I happen to have neither (passport recently expired) I have to go into the electoral office with notarised copies of my birth certificate, naturalisation certificate, copies of utility bills etc to validly get back on the electoral roll.

    I have been living in Australia for 60 years, and have been on the roll for 40 of them.

    If only I had a drivers licence issued by Ahmed of Bankstown!

  38. Empire

    A COUNCIL in Melbourne’s north will give free office space to same-sex marriage campaigners — while blacklisting opponents of marriage equality. Greens-dominated Darebin Council will also issue a warning to local churches not to campaign against same-sex marriage.

    It will allow ‘yes’ campaigners to use council facilities and services for free in the lead up to the postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage. But ‘no’ campaigners will be barred from using council facilities, according to an urgent motion to be voted on next week.

    They will declare war? Excellent.

    The proposal sounds like a lawyers picnic. I hope the ACL has their ammo locked and loaded for some high cadence lawfare.

    There is precedence for council’s fascist behaviour:
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/north/darebin-council-to-blacklist-sporting-clubs-and-groups-with-poker-machine-links/news-story/6c52d74698283aa8c3a82b874043f6e8

    Motivated Cats can carpet bomb the Local Government Minister and demand to know why a council that collects rates from all folks is actively discriminating against their paymasters.

    Sack Darebin Council Now! Campaign justice for conservatives!

  39. C.L.

    It’s perplexing that the pro-SSM case can think they can erase the foundation upon which marriage is founded, sex, all the while pretending that you could build a conservative case over the debris.

    The “conservative case” is just insincere concern trolling and PR trickery. Australia’s libertarians are especially fond of/conned by it. The same people who five minutes ago regarded marriage as just shy of Auschwitz in terms of hellish oppression now pretend it is institutionally peerless for children, social stability and the nation’s treasury. They don’t believe a word of this.

  40. Dr Fred Lenin

    Repeal the marriage act and the whole socialist engineering crap will fall flat on its face ,and we will save the cost of a plebiscite .
    Seriously this s mother reason why referenda should be held on ALL government t decisions ,theclowns should ot be allowed to excercise power ,that belongs to the people . One term politicians and constant referenda is a recipe for true democracy power to the people .

  41. notafan

    I don’t see the point of repealing the Marriage Act

    We should fight for the institution that underpin our society, not abandon them because of a handful of bullies.

  42. John Constantine

    Two lipstick lesbians get married in university, for the lovely party and to stick it up their daddies for not buying them ponies.

    After graduation, one is pregnant by ivf and a donor and the other one has the change of hormones that come with the ticking of the biological clock and runs off with a bloke.

    Does the non biological girl have to pay child support and alimony to her ex wife?.

    Does this cement in non-biological male partners of women that have children by other men as having to pay for the other mans child?.

    Once non-biological gay parents fall into the horrors of the divorce system, it will get interesting.

    Leads us back to the huge push that fatherhood is nothing to do with genetics and all to do with paying out the money.

    Or the bigger push that the State should be the taxfunded big daddy and pay all child costs from general taxation, regardless of who the father was.

    Why should some women miss out on nice things because they got pregnant to a poor man?.

    Why should a child born to a man with six wives and forty children have less than an only child born to a monagamous couple?.

  43. johanna

    Marriage is and always has been a public institution.

    What a stupid statement.

    Marriage existed long before your beloved institutions. It also existed outside them.

  44. Rococo Liberal

    I think what annoys me most about this whole gay marriage farce is that the debate is over the wrong question.
    Surely the if the debate is one about equality of gay and straight relationships there are two questions to be decided. The first is whether gay partners have the same rights and privileges under law as married people. The second question is whether gay unions need to be registered for gay partners to enjoy those same rights and privileges.
    My understanding is that most of the relevant laws do not differentiate between gay or staright partners. So gays already have the rights and privileges that de facto heterosexual couples have. There is nothing stoping gay people from having weddings to announce their committment to each other to the world.
    So what the lefties are opushing for is the registration of gay partnerships. OK, why not just pass an Act which allows the government to register gay partnerships after a ceremony? Why do the gay lobbyists find the need to pervert the language and the culture by insisting on the naming of their unions as marraiges. Next they will be asking the government to deem an orange to be an apple.

  45. Shagger

    “…they might deliver a Brexit-style silent revolt”.

    My arse they “might”.

    This proposal to destroy our culture will be smashed by a public entirely sick to the back teeth of the Frankfurt school bullying tactics of these Marxist scumbags.

    They’re out of the shadows & into the light, for all to see. I can hardly wait for the shrieking & wailing. It’s going to be hilarious.

  46. C.L.

    Marriage is and always has been a public institution.
    —————
    What a stupid statement.

    Marriage existed long before your beloved institutions.

    I didn’t say anything about “beloved institutions,” dummie.
    I said marriage has always been a public institution.
    It has. It was always about saying to the village/town/tribe/parish: ‘the two of us are now together and we want everyone to know that and respect that.’

  47. Cannibal

    But ‘no’ campaigners will be barred from using council facilities, according to an urgent motion to be voted on next week.

    No campaigners will also be granted and exemption from paying rates. /sarc

  48. .

    notafan
    #2469338, posted on August 15, 2017 at 11:12 am
    I don’t see the point of repealing the Marriage Act

    We should fight for the institution that underpin our society, not abandon them because of a handful of bullies.

    The marriage act weakens marriage for the truly faithful. A Catholic couple could get married under canon law in a freer society.

  49. C.L.

    Why do the gay lobbyists find the need to pervert the language and the culture by insisting on the naming of their unions as marriages?

    Have you been paying attention to anything, RL?
    The goal of the gay lobby is to psychically wound and humiliate their enemies – which they understand to be Christians, traditional families and heterosexuals who regard their heterosexuality as normative (which it is).

  50. mh

    The use of the term same sex marriage appears to have the intention of taking homosexuality out of the debate. SSM sounds like two female besties at Uni shouldn’t be stopped from strengthening their friendship. It could also be a distraction so that we don’t discuss whether we should be normalising the act of one man being balls deep inside another man’s anus.

  51. amortiser

    The idea of gays generally entering into a monogamous relationship is laughable. Many years ago I attended a medical lecture on AIDS presented by Julien Gold who ran one of the first AIDS clinics in Darlinghurst in Sydney.

    He was talking about the change in behaviour of gays since the appearance of AIDS within the gay community. He said that the incidence of monogamy in the gay community had increased dramatically over this period. The listeners were indeed impressed by this disclosure. He then said that the definition of monogamy in the gay community was maintaining the same partner for more than 6 months.

    It’s all about the definitions. The definition of marriage is to be changed. The definition of gender is being changed. The meaning of words is now fluid. Reality is now an individual construct independent of the world we exist in.

  52. max

    “In the long run, ideas, not force, rule; and any government has to have legitimacy in the minds of the public.”

    as long as you support any of this — no change for better can occur

    A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.

    Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.

    Free Education for All Children in Public Schools.

    standing armies

    professional police

    foreign policy that support wars

    professional politicians

    Or to put it this way:
    as long the voting population sees no real problem with fiat money, engaging in massive deficit spending, policing the entire world, providing health care, providing social security and micro-managing every business decision

  53. Roger

    Why do the gay lobbyists find the need to pervert the language and the culture by insisting on the naming of their unions as marraiges.

    Whoever controls language controls the culture.

  54. notafan

    The goal of the gay lobby is to psychically wound and humiliate their enemies – which they understand to be Christians, traditional families and heterosexuals who regard their heterosexuality as normative (which it is).

    Indeed.

    At least partially in a quest to quell their inner emptiness.

    Sad fact, getting ssmarriage isn’t going to do it for them, or the next thing or the next thing.

  55. As soon as I got to the part where the author used the term “marriage equality” I knew he/she/it/zxi was just another marxist western civilization hater. They use coded terms to push agendas.

    I’m to believe thousands of pinkos are traumatised because they can’t hand over some papers and cash to a 9 to 4 bureaucrat. Bull$hit. It’s not about the paperwork, it’s about the commitments made in the presence of witnesses including your maker. Nothing stopping pinkos doing that now.

    I’m to believe that this legal can of worms opening will not lead to a slippery slope, yet a woman married a train station in Europe, triples have applied to court for “marriage equality” in South America, proponents of polygamy have already started talking about their rights and “equality” and Harambe had the same rights as a child. Some ugly b!tch with hairy armpits will want to marry Harambes kin in the near future. Why not, the can of worms will have been busted open.
    Hey, he has his rights and so does his goat. She has her rights and so does her German Shepherd.

    I’m voting effyou.

  56. Irreversible

    I’m going to vote yes and encourage others to vote yes for a plain conservative purpose. I resent the thought that the state has any role in deciding a person’s choice to marry. It’s no good claiming this is a political matter. It’s not. It’s personal. Just look at the bind Abbott has got himself in with his own sister, who is neither an enemy of free speech nor in any way PC. Nothing good comes of that argument.

  57. I’m going to vote yes and encourage others to vote yes for a plain conservative purpose. I resent the thought that the state has any role in deciding a person’s choice to marry. It’s no good claiming this is a political matter. It’s not. It’s personal. Just look at the bind Abbott has got himself in with his own sister, who is neither an enemy of free speech nor in any way PC. Nothing good comes of that argument.

    Spare me. There is no ‘conservative’ purpose as it involves a radical redefinition of marriage, given it has always been a union of the sexes. So you ‘resent’ consanguinity restrictions? You ‘resent’ restrictions as to number? And how can you deny this isn’t a political matter given the need to actual pass legislation overturning an understanding of marriage that has been operative in our civilization since the beginning of the common law. Or given the political and legal consequences that are likely to follow the passage of such a radical redefinition. Oh, please, Christine Forster is not PC. nor an enemy of free speech. Dear oh dear.

  58. Dr Sir Major General

    “I resent the thought that the state has any role in deciding a person’s choice to marry.”
    Therefore Irreversible will vote to ensure that not only will the State decide who can and can’t marry (regardless of what marriage actually means) but also the State will force everyone to agree to the new definition of marriage. Of course!

    “It’s no good claiming this is a political matter. It’s not. It’s personal.”
    The whole push to redefine marriage to include pseudo-marriage is driven by politics, enabled by politics, and funded by political activists who seek a political solution but, because marriage is also a personal issue it cannot be political. Of course!

    Mr. Abbott’s “sister, who is neither an enemy of free speech nor in any way PC.”
    Sure. She believes every single piety* of the modern ‘progressive’ but she not in any way PC. Of course!

    * You might think that she’s a Catholic, which isn’t very PC, but she’s one of those new, modern, PC Catholics who want to change the Catholic Church to reflect modernity, to allow tribades to marry, and to allow priestesses—in other words, she loathes the Catholic Church, as it is, as much as any other ‘progressive’ hater of religion.

  59. Irreversible

    Interesting how both the commentators above know so much about how Christine Foster thinks while at the same time making sweeping generalisations about people they don’t know. Give me a break.

  60. How about answering the above replies rather than clutching your pearls.

  61. C.L.

    It’s no good claiming this is a political matter. It’s not. It’s personal.

    Tweaking von Clausewitz, politics today is the continuation of personal grievances by other means.

  62. johanna

    I said marriage has always been a public institution.

    You insist that whatever people do is an “institution.”

    What nonsense.

    Pleae, how do you define an institution, and then, why is it a good thing?

  63. A Lurker

    I don’t know who or what Irreversible is, but it’s abundantly clear that Irreversible is not a Conservative. The name they have chosen for their words on the Cat is a clear expression of what they believe – ‘irreversible – impossible to change back to a previous position or state’, or in other words, someone who barrels forward without heed or caution or care.

    Irreversible seems to me to be the exact opposite of a Conservative and so stating that their support for ssm is “for a plain conservative purpose” is the height of deceit.

  64. C.L.

    You insist that whatever people do is an “institution.”

    Does anyone know what Joanna is talking about?

  65. Dr Sir Major General

    commentators above know so much about how Christine Foster thinks

    Oddly enough, it is quite easy to surmise rather accurately “how Christine Foster thinks” simply by listening to what she says and reading what she writes. If you pay attention to what people say and write, Irreversible, you too might learn that their words fairly often tend to reflect what they think.

  66. Aussieute

    The “unintended” effects have already commenced.
    A client has already cautioned 2 gay staff members for their SSM bullying of other staff.
    The rest of the staff, some gay, raised the issue.
    The response .. wait until after the vote we will do what ever we like.
    One got the sack this morning for two more instances of bullying fellow staff.
    The other gay staff are ensuring that the other miscreant will go the same way.

  67. Ellen of Tasmania

    To take one example, this could happen if people begin to feel that by extending marriage rights, their own right to hold private religious views will be diminished.

    Yeah, but it’s not an ‘if’ at all. How’s it all working out overseas? It happens ‘when’ not ‘if’ – because that is what they want it for.

    But remember until as recently as the 1970s pretty much all sex was taboo. Even heterosexual relationships were only socially acceptable within marriage.

    Because sexual promiscuity has worked out so well in our new ever-happy utopia, we should embrace more of it – is that the idea? Get rid of all ‘taboos’ and everything is perfect? And were you wanting us to be horrified at the thought of lots of marital sex going on before – and after – your sexual revolution?

    “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
    (Chesterton, of course.)

  68. You insist that whatever people do is an “institution.”

    What nonsense.

    Pleae, how do you define an institution, and then, why is it a good thing?

    That is the quintessential intellectual yolo. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    Definition of institution
    1
    : an act of instituting : establishment
    2
    a : a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture the institution of marriage;

    CL insisted marriage was an institution. That is beyond dispute. He also added it was a public one. This is evidenced by the customs, norms, and practices associated with marriage, like a wedding, where the relationship is made public to all. By the wearing of a ring or some other ornament. By the change in one’s social status,. By the change in how a spouse is addressed, Miss becomes Mrs. And so on.

  69. Stimpson J. Cat

    But it’s worth remembering that we are all immigrants from a not-too-distant past.

    No, I am not an immigrant.
    I have never lived in the past, only the now.

  70. C.L.

    Marriage has been a public institution since primordial times.
    There are a whole host of reasons for this: the policing of sexual exclusivity, responsibility for children, kinship bonds, property and inheritance rights, even avoidance of in-breeding. The ‘public’ had a right to know who was married and they benefited from knowing – as did the partners themselves. Marriage – leaving aside some of the decisions associated with marriage – has never been a private thing. To say otherwise is not only bizarre, historically, but is actually an inversion of the truth, vis-a-vis homosexual relationships, as these were lived in Western societies. It was the latter that were private. Proponents of SS”M” wish to abandon privacy in favour of a public – albeit corrupted – institution.

  71. Damienski

    Reality is now an individual construct independent of the world we exist in.

    “We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”

    An acute observation from a very wise person.

  72. Marriage – leaving aside some of the decisions associated with marriage – has never been a private thing. To say otherwise is not only bizarre, historically, but is actually an inversion of the truth, vis-a-vis homosexual relationships, as these were lived in Western societies. It was the latter that were private. Proponents of SS”M” wish to abandon privacy in favour of a public – albeit corrupted – institution.

    Precisely. It’s why I’ve previously asked what public interest is there in recognizing homosexual relations?

  73. .

    Marriage has been a public institution since primordial times.

    You’re going to have to explain how that is correct in wholly literal terms.

  74. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Just vote ‘no’. You will send a message and do less harm.

  75. notafan

    Primordial comes from the Latin words primus, meaning “first” and ordiri, “to begin.” So it is easy to see that this adjective means “first of all, original.”

    Adam and Eve maybe?

  76. Speedbox

    Life can be tough. It is always uncompromising and we human beings have a proclivity for judging others. There was a time, not that long ago, that homosexuality was judged as bad or evil and in some societies, it still is. In Australia, we accept gays into society, in part because we are obliged by law to be tolerant, but also because we have become somewhat desensitised and are not overly concerned what two (or more) consenting adults do in a bedroom.

    The socially progressive Left regard a gay couple with a small child as all rather cute. Ok, but as noted by another poster above, how does society respond if the child grows into adulthood and carries with him or her a seething resentment of school/ parents/society as a consequence of being a product of a homosexual family.

    Of course, not every child will emerge with an affliction, but do those adults who choose homosexual relationships have the moral right to play psychological Russian roulette with their child?

    Separately, and as I mentioned in another post, once you legislatively and socially allow that two homosexuals should be free to marry each other on the grounds that they are consenting adults, then you cannot logically oppose three(or more) consenting adults from legally marrying.

    And what of the inevitable family breakdown? Those who have been through it will know that the Family Court can be a nightmare (at best). Consider the implications where, in the case of a polygamous marriage, three, four or more adults claim parentage rights over the child. And although the Family Court will focus on the welfare of the child, the inclusion of additional parents can only add to the child’s distress. A veritable merry-go-round of access weekends for the child to endure amongst those adults awarded visitation rights.

    I understand that the current proposition is only to allow homosexual marriage. But I am also sure that it won’t stop there. In the broader sense, this is just one part in the ideological war and “gay marriage” is merely the chosen vehicle to a much larger agenda. Much like a Trojan horse.

  77. OldOzzie

    Comment of the Day on The Australian

    Tony Abbott Article – Abbott: Why I’ll say no to same-sex marriage

    Cherry 1 HOUR AGO

    If the gays were to really celebrate their status as gays, they would do so with a ceremony befitting their statues instead of encroaching on the traditions of others.

    And as my grandmother once said – a man’s anus is never going to do the job of a woman’s womb. And that is the difference, like it or not.

  78. OldOzzie

    ABC host Emma Alberici under fire for ‘bullying’ on same-sex marriage

    The ABC’s Emma Alberici has come under fire for “bullying” a columnist who questioned the tactics of Same-Sex Marriage supporters.

    Sky News journalist Caroline Marcus penned an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph today, accusing some gay marriage supporters of engaging in dirty tricks. She suggested activists were set to push many undecided people into voting no on the issue.

    Marcus cited Former High Court chief justice Michael Kirby and Alberici as the “worst offenders” in the “Yes brigade”.

    Alberici responded on Twitter, but she has been accused of bullying by, among others, former prime minister Tony Abbott.

    The high-profile Lateline presenter was criticised last week for questioning Finance Minister Mathias Cormann about his party’s “bickering” on same-sex marriage, and relating a story about her daughter’s 15-year-old friend who had been kicked out of home after coming out to his family.

    The ABC’s policy manager emailed staff last week to remind staff to restrain themselves in favour of same-sex marriage on social media and in their news reporting.

    In a note to all staff, Mark Maley wrote that “now that the government has announced the postal plebiscite, the focus has returned well and truly to the rights and wrongs of same-sex marriage and the changing of the Marriage Act”.

    “Please remember that approximately 40 per cent of the population opposes the change and more importantly that the ABC does not have a position on the issue.

    “It is very important that we are impartial and that all perspectives are given a fair hearing and treated with respect by the ABC.

    “In this charged environment I would also urge everyone to be circumspect on social media — advocating for one side or the other will make it more difficult for the ABC to be seen as impartial. The more high-profile you are the more important discretion is.”

  79. Confused Old Misfit

    The battle is lost already.
    The very word “marriage” has been corrupted and this corruption has been accepted even by those who declare themselves in opposition to the principle. It doesn’t matter if you prefix the word with “gay” or “same sex” or use a hyphen. When you use those terms in conjunction with “marriage” you have ceded the field.
    The corruption of the language precedes the corruption of the law.

  80. C.L.

    Marriage has been a public institution since primordial times.
    —————–
    You’re going to have to explain how that is correct in wholly literal terms.

    In what other “terms” are there?
    Does ‘primordial’ have a metaphorical meaning we’re all unaware of?
    No, it’s so sociologically axiomatic that you’ll have to explain why it isn’t correct.
    You’ll have to show that marriage was secret and private in ancient times.
    GO!

  81. C.L.

    Separately, and as I mentioned in another post, once you legislatively and socially allow that two homosexuals should be free to marry each other on the grounds that they are consenting adults, then you cannot logically oppose three (or more) consenting adults from legally marrying.

    The corollaries are far more substantive than that.
    For example, why do you restrict such new incarnations of ‘marriage’ to “adults”?
    If legislatures can alter the meaning of marriage, they can rescind the requirement of majority.
    They can even alter the meaning and importance of consent.
    If there is no trans-legislative, trans-judicial definition of marriage – as there has been hitherto – it follows that there can be no irrevocable defining requisites of marriage whatsoever.

  82. .

    You’ll have to show that marriage was secret and private in ancient times.

    I am pretty sure you don’t want to extend public goods to non-secret activities, nor do you want your non secret private acts considered public acts.

  83. notafan

    I am pretty sure you don’t want to extend public goods to non-secret activities, nor do you want your non secret private acts considered public acts.

    English please dot

    Either marriage was a public constitution from the get go or it wasn’t

  84. C.L.

    … nor do you want your non secret private acts considered public acts.

    Good luck conveyancing a block of land, then.

  85. Irreversible

    Quite a few here appear to be arguing about whether homosexuality ought to be legal. I would suggest to Speedbox who has dragged kids into his argument that he should talk to people who work with troubled kids. He might find out that marriage is no guarantee of anything where they’re concerned.

  86. Irreversible
    #2469668, posted on August 15, 2017 at 4:18 pm

    Quite a few here appear to be arguing about whether homosexuality ought to be legal.

    Name names, take numbers. I’ll wait.

  87. Tim Neilson

    He might find out that marriage is no guarantee of anything where they’re concerned.

    Good, so we’re agreed that the “won’t somebody think of the children!” argument for gay “marriage” is bullshit.

  88. Irreversible

    Humbug: give this a go.

    In Australia, we accept gays into society, in part because we are obliged by law to be tolerant, but also because we have become somewhat desensitised

  89. Muddy

    Sadly, I think that SSM will get past the post. So many of my clients rarely leave home, have the TV going all day, and can only parrot what they have heard from their moral overlords.

    What do other Cats think the next targets of the ‘progressives’ will be?

    An all-female federal parliament. I’m not kidding. There will be a parallel parliament, all female. It will be a nightmare in terms of jurisdiction, but will trigger a massive boom in university law schools.

  90. Dr Sir Major General

    Bernard Gaynor reports:

    The word on the street has reached Eyes on Sydney: the Islamic community is quietly being told to vote yes in the upcoming plebiscite.

    Same-sex ‘marriage’ will lead to legalised polygamy.
    Après de nouvelles règles du mariage, le déluge.

  91. Irreversible

    Humbug: another for you

    The goal of the gay lobby is to psychically wound and humiliate their enemies – which they understand to be Christians, traditional families and heterosexuals who regard their heterosexuality as normative (which it is).

  92. C.L.

    He might find out that marriage is no guarantee of anything where [children are] concerned.

    Oh God. It’s the same ‘arguments’ over and over and over again.
    Here’s this one in three easy steps:

    1) Marriages sometimes go wrong and this has bad consequences for the children.
    2) *giant leap into the void of leftist logic*
    3) Ergo: homosexual ‘marriage’ is good for/neutral as regards children’s health and well-being.
    —————
    An often-seen variation is …

    1) But a spouse often dies and people (like my own beloved Aunty Myrtle) brought children up, sans spouse, very well indeed. Plus, I have a gay uncle; he’s great with kids and taught me how to change a tyre.
    2) *giant leap into the void of leftist logic*
    3) Ergo: homosexual ‘marriage’ is good for/neutral as regards children’s health and well-being.
    —————
    Now the truth Uzi.
    Studies show (and everybody knows) that children are – all things being equal – best served being raised in a stable heterosexual-partnered family. Your widowed Aunt Myrtle deserves a medal or a Wedgewood plate, as do the jaded heroes who care for children from broken homes. But neither of these scenarios displace or disprove reality. The reality is this: the best way to ensure children grow up healthily and happily is for them to be brought up by their heterosexual parents (or foster-parents, if you insist on piling on one distraction after another).

  93. Felix Kruell

    Same-sex ‘marriage’ will lead to legalised polygamy.

    Or as I like to call it, ‘Biblical Marriage’

  94. twostix

    I’m going to vote yes and encourage others to vote yes for a plain conservative purpose.

    Nothing says “conservatism” like gay marriage and the state redefining reality.

    (Honestly, this is what “conservativism(tm)” is like, in ten years it’ll be ‘the conservative case for abolishing male and female from all public affairs’).

  95. twostix

    Or as I like to call it, ‘Biblical Marriage’

    Whoa you’re amazing!

  96. twostix

    Marriage is the people’s institution.

    Its administration was grudgingly given over to the state, in trust, to regulate.

    The modern state thinks it is some sort of limitless god, untethered from the people and can now simply redefine all things King Canute style.

  97. Dr Sir Major General

    ‘Biblical Marriage’

    Perhaps, Felix Kruell, since you identify things so wittily, you might help us by identifying those Biblical passages that enjoin or espouse polygamy.

  98. Felix Kruell

    identifying those Biblical passages that enjoin or espouse polygamy.

    Most of the Old Testament seems to talk about it without god smiting anyone, or anyone being told off for it. Sounds pretty live and let live if anything. Oh and let’s not forget the concubines. They were a key part of the institution of marriage too. But maybe I’m getting it wrong. Maybe they were all just good friends. Cycling buddies even.

  99. C.L.

    Attention, gay lobby: be sure to use these devastating arguments the next time an Ultra-Orthodox rabbi starts lecturing you about marriage.

  100. Irreversible:

    I would suggest to Speedbox who has dragged kids into his argument that he should talk to people who work with troubled kids. He might find out that marriage is no guarantee of anything where they’re concerned.

    No, the author of this post did that when she stated:

    Stable domestic situations promote the wellbeing of the children in a household, as well as reducing the potential for welfare fraud.

    Both of these arguments carry conservative weight, but children are a priority.

    Children are increasingly born into irregular situations created by parents of all sexual orientations. Offering parents who want it a way to create more stability for children can only be a positive and is an inherently conservative thing to do. To put it another way, far from undermining it, extending marriage equality to same-sex relationships will likely make society more conservative, not less.

    CL’s riposte to your substantive point serves well too.

  101. a reader

    C.L. you’re an absolute gun on this issue. Hope you don’t mind if I steal some of your arguments. My facebook seems to be overwhelming gay marriage hoohaa but when I actually look at it it’s only about maybe 2 dozen out of 300 odd friends and acquaintances. I think most people are too afraid to put out in public what they really believe and I suspect that things will actually be way closer in this plebiscite than the pro-homosexual marriage redefinition crowd want to admit.

  102. Or as I like to call it, ‘Biblical Marriage’

    Not at all. The OT is clear that marriage is a union of man and a woman. Polygamy is regarded as a non-ideal concession to circumstance, and it is always considered a possible source of strife. By the time of Christ, the ideal is reaffirmed strongly.

  103. In Australia, we accept gays into society, in part because we are obliged by law to be tolerant, but also because we have become somewhat desensitised

    The goal of the gay lobby is to psychically wound and humiliate their enemies – which they understand to be Christians, traditional families and heterosexuals who regard their heterosexuality as normative (which it is).

    Not quite, Quite a few here appear to be arguing about whether homosexuality ought to be legal, really. Not even close.

  104. Most of the Old Testament seems to talk about it without god smiting anyone, or anyone being told off for it. Sounds pretty live and let live if anything. Oh and let’s not forget the concubines. They were a key part of the institution of marriage too.

    Come on, be honest. You haven’t read the relevant texts, let alone in context. You’re cribbing this from the Skeptic’s Bible or some such. No one familiar with the story of Solomon can leave with the impression that multiplying wives, etc. was going to end well or that this didn’t depart from God’s counsel. As twostix reminds us, its not 2006 anymore, this sort of gnu atheist jibe does not even pierce the skin.

  105. Felix Kruell

    You haven’t read the relevant texts, let alone in context

    In context? You don’t believe in a literal interpretation? Oh dear.

    I’ll happily let the theologians battle it out, as they have been, on homosexuality and marriage in the bible. But the simple fact is that marriage as described in the bible isn’t one man and one woman for life. It’s almost like the definition has changed over times as society has changed.

  106. Fisky

    The thing we really need to understand about the “ethics” of gay marriage is this: if there were ever a serious breakdown in antibiotics, we will be back to Old Testament morality faster than you say Sodom.

  107. Fisky

    The revolution that made gay rights, and gay marriage, possible is wholly contingent on a set of technological and medical circumstances. Which we should never take for granted.

  108. Fisky

    Put aside the God of the Old Testament for a moment. What were people worried about? They were terrified of the crops failing, and plague or disease ripping through . That’s where all their laws come from. They assumed that God was punishing por behaviour, and after a thousand or so years of oral history, they started writing this down.

  109. In context? You don’t believe in a literal interpretation? Oh dear.

    Oh dear indeed. Literally interprets this dopey:

    Gen 2: 24. Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

    Note the use of the singular.
    Then, in the NT, Mathew 19:

    4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”

    Pretty clear that the ‘biblical view’ of marriage is of a union between a man and a woman. The story of Solomon gives a pretty clear lesson that polygamy is a sub-optimal form of marriage to be engaged in in only the most exceptional circumstances (for instance, where there is a pronounced imbalance of number between the sexes, or in order to care for a widow, and the like).

    The simple fact is that marriage as described in the bible isn’t one man and one woman for life. It’s almost like the definition has changed over times as society has changed.

    LOL. I think it’s safe to say that marriage in the Bible is always a union between the sexes, whether or not it involves monogamous or polygamous marriages. It’s almost as if you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

  110. .

    Either marriage was a public constitution from the get go or it wasn’t

    Huh?!

    Good luck conveyancing a block of land, then.

    If you want the public to have a say in this, you’re destroying private property rights. I don’t think it is a serious conservative argument to fall back on this already happening for regarding marriage as a public institution.

  111. What are you talking about, dot? To say that marriage is a public institution doesn’t mean the public can manage your domestic affairs while married. It simply means that you make your situation known to the world, that there are certain customs, norms, etc. to be followed, and the like. CL gave a shed load of reasons for this, stop pretending that any of this portends the destruction of private property rights, ffs.

  112. .

    C.L. made the analogy.

    It simply means that you make your situation known to the world, that there are certain customs, norms, etc. to be followed, and the like

    Which does not necessitate any formal legal recognition. You’ve described something less than common law marriage.

  113. .

    Here’s the thing too. If you claim that “marriage is a public institution” in a democratic country and elect a Parliament that legislates SSM or the people vote for SSM in a plebiscite, there is no comeback to it, unless you withdraw the claim or argue against democracy.

  114. If you want the public to have a say in this, you’re destroying private property rights.

    No, he is saying that your private ownership of that block of land is made known to the public by registration at a titles office. Again, ffs. The public can find out who owns this property, what its dimensions are, what covenants and easements operate on the land, and so on. He is not saying that the public has an unlimited right to determine to whom you can sell this, or whether you can sell this property. It’s unbelievable that this needs to be explained.

  115. Which does not necessitate any formal legal recognition.

    Marriage has customarily involved legal recognition. Vows are typically made between the spouses to each other.

    You’ve described something less than common law marriage.

    Common law marriage requires the putative spouses to hold themselves out to the world as a married couple. Note the public aspect therein. Stop trying to pretend that a public institution ‘necessitates’ a formal document.

  116. OneWorldGovernment

    The simple fact is that the poofters killed each other. AIDS

    The simple fact is that the poofters blood killed other people.

    The simple fact is that the poofters are the gaystapo.

    Hey you poofters, you want to smash everyone?

  117. Here’s the thing too. If you claim that “marriage is a public institution” in a democratic country and elect a Parliament that legislates SSM or the people vote for SSM in a plebiscite, there is no comeback to it, unless you withdraw the claim or argue against democracy.

    Of course there’s a comeback, beside it being true. Marriage is a public institution because it always has been public, in precisely the sense CL, I, and others have described. It’s not ‘public’ because the Parliament or the courts legislated, or decided cases, respectively, on certain matters relating to marriage. The comeback is and always must be founded on what marriage is, on the thing itself; namely, a union between the sexes. That is overwhelming the case when we look at marriage across cultures and ages, and this is overwhelming reflected in the customs, laws, and norms relating to marriage, and to such an extent that Black’s Law Dictionary, 2 ed., defined marriage as an “association…founded on the distinction of sex.”

  118. None

    Sure let’s deny natural parent rights and give the state full power to determine legal parentage instead so that teh gsys can have kids. Oh of course turn women into egg factories and wombs for hire. State patenthood and modern day slavery. Yeah, can’t think of anything more conservative than that. *snort*

  119. OneWorldGovernment

    I think that I should be able to root any person I want.

    Whether they object or not.

    SSM

    I will root them all.

  120. notafan

    It’s all so bloomin’ obvious, only post truth post modernists can claim otherwise.

  121. Felix Kruell

    LOL. I think it’s safe to say that marriage in the Bible is always a union between the sexes, whether or not it involves monogamous or polygamous marriages. It’s almost as if you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

    So it’s a changing institution? Wow that took a while to acknowledge.

    If we can change whether it’s 2 people or a few more, or whether they have to be of the same religion or race, or whether it is for life or for politics/business, do you think we might be able to change it to include two people of the same sex?

  122. .

    You cannot claim marriage is a public institution and never changing in a democratic country. That’s just impossible. Unless you pervert the meaning of the operative terms of that proposition.

  123. So it’s a changing institution? Wow that took a while to acknowledge.

    If we can change whether it’s 2 people or a few more, or whether they have to be of the same religion or race, or whether it is for life or for politics/business, do you think we might be able to change it to include two people of the same sex?

    Don’t be daft. Marriage is a union between the sexes. That means it can involve 2 or more persons (but this is obviously limited by the mutual obligations involved in marriage) but ideally it should involve a man and a woman. It means that differences in race or religion are not impediments to marriage. It means that the reasons people enter into marriage do not exclude the intrinsic goods of marriage. These differences within marriage involved no fundamental change in what marriage is. But, to erase what has always been fundamental to what marriage is, a union between the sexes, does, so, No.

  124. You cannot claim marriage is a public institution and never changing in a democratic country. That’s just impossible. Unless you pervert the meaning of the operative terms of that proposition.

    Where is this claim actually made? The Parliament could decide to recognize polygamous marriage? It could raise or lower the age of consent? The Parliament could, of course, even change the legal definition of marriage fundamentally; I’m not denying its legal power to do so. But there is no way around this; certainly, denying the public character of marriage will not achieve it.

  125. Dr Sir Major General

    Could a battery work with two positive poles instead of the outmoded negative and a positive? No.
    Could we power our electrical devices with a male plug attached to a male socket instead of just conventionally fitting a male plug into a female socket? No.
    Could we have table salt with only sodium molecules instead of the old-fashioned chloride and sodium? No.
    Could we have computer software with only zeroes or with exciting threes, fours and fives instead of the boring old traditionally binary ones and zeroes? No.
    Could we breed more cattle by having a bull serve a bull instead of having a bull serving a heifer as usual?
    Next stupid question: “do you think we might be able to change [marriage, which is based on the irrefutable truth that men and women are complementary] to include two people of the same sex?” Hmmm. Let’s see. No.

  126. .

    Next stupid question

    Welcome to democracy.

  127. cynical1

    ” ironically, the first major sexual taboos were smashed by heterosexuals who were desperate not to be married”.

    By the pill and no consequence screwing around,actually.

  128. mh

    The thing we really need to understand about the “ethics” of gay marriage is this: if there were ever a serious breakdown in antibiotics, we will be back to Old Testament morality faster than you say Sodom.

    Strains of untreatable gonorrhea have now emerged in Japan, France and Spain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *