If you think you have good arguments against gay marriage, then make them. Nobody will stop you. If they turn out to be bad arguments, then that will be pointed out, and if you persist in them you will be asked to explain your motivations in putting them forward. If your motivations are personal and emotional rather than rational -- if you are fanatical rather than misguided -- and you persist in them, you will be revealed as an irrational and possibly dangerous person, and forfeit the respect to which rational people are entitled.

If Tony Abbott announced tomorrow that he was getting policy advice from angels, he would cease to be Prime Minister very rapidly, and quite rightly so. We expect people in positions of responsibility to provide rational backing for their decisions, and if they are unable or unwilling to do so then we form our opinions of their competence accordingly.

JJ. I think you have just perfectly demonstrated the authors point. Well done.

((

"It is contrary to etiquette to yawn in the presence of a king," the monarch said to him. "I forbid you to do so."

"I can't help it. I can't stop myself," replied the little prince, thoroughly embarrassed. "I have come on a long journey, and I have had no sleep . . ."

"Ah, then," the king said. "I order you to yawn. It is years since I have seen anyone yawning. Yawns, to me, are objects of curiosity. Come, now! Yawn again! It is an order."

"That frightens me . . . I cannot, any more . . ." murmured the little prince, now completely abashed.

"Hum! Hum!" replied the king. "Then I--I order you sometimes to yawn and sometimes to--"

He sputtered a little, and seemed vexed.

))

- From http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/framechapter10.html

Is it not time already to recognise that marriage, like yawning, is one's private affair? Why should the state administer and register marriages in the first place? Do we need a "ministry of yawning"?

The threats to both religion and the traditional family, which the author complains about, are real and scary, though so far they all happen in other countries. The state is there to protect people and their chosen way of life, but who will defend us from the state if it has a double role and is also the villain which wants to attack our way of life?

It was very proper to separate state and religion, but so should there be a separation of state and marriage, state and yawning, state and education and much more. The only function of the state should be to protect our freedom.

This author ruins his argument through hyperbole, paranoia and exaggerated claims. However, he does point to some unfortunate aspects of the gamut of political action about social issues. This is of course present on both sides of any debate. For instance, the author accuses the pro-gay marriage movement for its attempts ‘to ostracise, punish, criminalise and censor’. Did he object to these very same actions when they were perpetrated on gay people, which has been the norm for centuries?

Agree almost exactly with Jon J. and can only add, Bah Humbug!
Rhrosty.

Godo, well said.

R0bert