[Deleted for offensive language.]

The ignorance behind this article rendered me speechless. I am of two minds about leaving a comment. On one hand, I loathe to dignify such a single dimensional line of reasoning. On the other, frankly, it makes my blood boil. Caught between such sentiment, I will be brief:

1. I suspect the author thought heterosexual relationship is the only complementary model of relationship simply because he is heterosexual. Simple empirical evidence quickly dispels the so called argument - my parents are one of the worst examples of heterosexual relationship; their relationship has been far from complementary and I feel saddened that they exist to bring out the worst in each other; meanwhile, I know of gay relationships that are significantly more complementary and enriching. So please stop making ignorant blanket statements.

2. Pulling out different concepts and beliefs about marriage solely from homosexual sources blatantly ignores the plethora of heterosexual people whose understanding and definition of marriage are more "out there" than those quoted by the author. In fact, given that the world is dominated by the heterosexual population, it stands to reason that significantly more heterosexual people in number have far more liberal views about marriage than homosexuals. Perhaps the author should consider dismantling the basic human right of his liberal heterosexual counterparts of being free to marry first before he attacks gays. Pick on somebody your own size.

"they want the repectability of "marriage" but be free to screw anything that moves."
Posted by peter piper, Thursday, 25 November 2010 7:36:37 AM

Generalisation. The dimensions of gay couples are unlikely to to be different to heterosexual couples, including those heterosexuals who play around openly or behind backs.

By similar cherry-picking of quotes, I can show that anti-same-sex marriage proponents are antisemitic polygamists, and atheistic communists too, who want the death penalty re-instated for homosexuality. Opposition to SSM is just the first step in transforming society into a Theocracy.

Which is rubbish of course, but you don't have to cherry-pick too hard to leave that impression.

The argument against SSM boils down to "it's not traditional". That's it.

Just as mixed-race marriage was not traditional, and frowned upon when I was young.

There's always been an impression that Bad Bill is lurking somewhere in the background, but so far he's been hidden by Muehlenberg's polite, almost urbane exterior. Not any more.

The first line of this piece reveals that Bad Bill has been unleashed: "A so-called conservative writer parroted some silly arguments for same-sex marriage." No pretence here of treating opposing views seriously, not even a hint of politeness. Bad Bill's opponents must be cut down as swiftly and viciously as possible.

This is streetfightin' stuff, vile prejudice writ large. It's the lunatic in the dark theatre trying to create a panic by screaming "Fire!"

Sad, really, how homosexuality affects some people

Woulfe, the last sentence in your post made me giggle. Very witty. ;)

Peter Piper, I am lost for words at your eloquence. Not sure what you do in bed (and frankly, I DON'T want to know because it makes me gag to even look over there, let alone going there) but arguing against gay marriage by stereotpying what gays do in bed? Oh please.

If one follows your same reasoning, we need to employ marriage police to neuter the marriage rights of many heterosexuals out there who practice dubious sexual acts, putting aside the obvious fact that different people find different acts repulsive. And yes, I hate to burst the bubble but many married heterosexuals in fact "screw anything that moves" as well. Are you tearing up their marriage certificates?

If you want to debate, please come up with something that resembles sound reasoning.