Nice piece, Jennifer

Those who are still naïvely unaware of the depth and consequences of heterosexual perversion *must* download and read "The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths" http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.htm

no wolfe in sheeps clothes...if people want to understand just how desperate the progressive/communist agenda to destroy the Nuclear family is...they need to listen to this talk.

A blow by blow account of the legislative changes in the UK and the social impact/destruction.

http://www.christianheritageuk.org.uk/Media/Player.aspx?media_id=41713&file_id=44708

FEMINISM-THE NEW SEXUAL AGENDA.

Congratulations, Dr. Wilson.
A well written and well reasoned article.

Another argument from the stratosphere of Dr Wilsons Anti-majority world of irreligion.

I would like to see a case put forward as to the seriousness of changing fundamental laws that have been part of world society for centuries.
Does the realization dawn on anyone that by changing the marriage laws, we will be changing the face of society.
Some arguments carried are - what will happen to heterosexual marriages?, or that heterosexual marriages are not perfect.
Allowing gay marriages to be legal will not make gay or heterosexual marriages perfect. Society is not perfect. In my opinion legislating for gay marriages will not make gay people any happier, they will still be same sex couples living together (albeit legally) unable to have children unless a person of the opposite sex joins their union one way or the other.

I think that this article is a calm breath of fresh air
in the mostly hysterical debate around gay marriage.
The arrogance of Bill Muehlenberg and his supporters
is neatly encapsulated in Jennifer Wilson's statement:

“Same sex marriage and same sex adoption are not dangers from which
governments need to protect us. But the tyranny of religions
destroying anybody’s democratic rights to these things, most
certainly is.”

Amen to that.

By the same token MAREELORRAINE, legislating for gay marriage will not affect any heterosexual marriages either!

AGIR, I doubt feminism has much interest in the subject of male homosexual marriages, do you?

My personal opinion is that many of the people who oppose gay marriage are trying desperately to hold on to some of the last remnants of what they see as a religious union of a man and woman.

These days however, there are far more people who don't get married in churches anyway, so I don't see the problem really.

the acceptance of 'gay' marriage will never happen with people who are interested in truth. No matter how many people the likes of Jennifer are able to brainwash nature itself shows us how unhealthy sodomy is. Yes nice people commit sodomy but nice people also fiddle with kids. This is not about being 'nice' people or not. This is about giving children a fair go rather than brainwashing them with the 'gay' agenda. As for lecturing Bill on truth I suggest Jennifer stop lecturing us on her perceived truth. She seems clueless. The idea that it is all about 'love' is a lot of baloney. Some men claim to 'love' every women in a skirt. The desperation of acceptance of an abhorrent lifestyle is written all over this article. We are happy to discriminate against polygamist and we should be happy to discriminate against people choosing this lifestyle also.

To address this topic, we really need to analyse why marriage
evolved as a cultural institution, in the first place.

Pairbonding in nature is common, amongst species where lots of
resources are required, to raise the offspring. Untold women have
told me, that they chose their husband as he was seen to be a
good and reliable provider. Fair enough, feeding a couple of kids
for 20 years or so, takes some doing.

Fair enough, women seek some certainty about their future and that
of their offspring, males seek some certainty in terms of sexual
exclusivity, for in evolutionary terms, there is not much point in
feeding somebody elses kids.

But our modern laws have overriden all this. Create some kids and
you will pay for 20 years. Live with somebody for a couple of years
and they can run riot with your assets or as a judge decides. The
judge will nearly invariably favour women with children and as of
the latest, consider the lifestyle that a female has become accustomed
to, even if she was on the streets before the relationship.

So marriage has become little but a quaint cultural institution for
those who want to express their commitment at the time. In legal
terms, there is little difference to shacking up with somebody.
Its also become quite a business for those who plan it all carefully
and with the intention of making a quid out of the whole thing.

That said, marriage has lost the intent it used to have. Today its
simply a cultural ceremony expressing intent and commitment at the time. If we change our minds later, so be it.

Legally, people are no more prodected then those shacking up together.
Given that today its little more then a commitment ceremony to make
people feel good, why should it matter what their gender is?

This article reads like something I would written 8-10 years ago believing myself back then a passionate defender of 'love' and 'equality' against narrow minded bigotry. But I was a just a cipher of advanced liberalism - a world view so taken for granted few are aware of it let alone in a position to critique it.

The author hasn't bothered to find out what norms characterise gay couplings. She would have found, non-monogamy, little desire for children, and short-term and crucially – an unwillingness to get married! The opposite of heterosexual norms. Sensible people understand marriage needs renewal not redefinition and abolition.

Marriage, in these fatally individualistic times, is thought to be merely chosen for purposes of individualistic self fulfillment and that erotic love is its essence. The author can't see what a degraded and evacuated notion this is of marriage. She hasn't thought to find out just what it is before reflexively mouthing the pieties of the politically correct.

There is all the difference in the world between the existence of a standard and the ordering of society to meet that standard (however poorly) and its redefinition and destruction.

The author needs to imagine the effects of accommodating gay norms:
-marriage no longer expected (gays very rarely want to marry),
-children no longer natural fruit (gay coupling is by nature sterile)
-no longer life long and binding (typical of gays);

legaling requiring us to be silent about norms we have inherited (even though we fail at them) because they don’t typify gay couplings (and would discriminate against them!) would mean young boys and girls and future generations would have a society ordered towards their marriage stolen from them. Society would lack the institution most necessary for generating citizens capable of ordered liberty: families with parent biological parents.

How ‘equal’ is all this for the majority? For those that follow?

Our task is marriage renewal. We are expected to be just stewards of an institution we inherited and are duty bound not to succumb to the silliest and most damaging aspects of an individualistic age.

I'm quite suspicious of claims of "a world view so taken for granted few are aware of it let alone in a position to critique it."

I really do doubt that there are as many idiots in the world as this claim seems to assume.

As I mentioned in the article, there are arguments against the institution of marriage, and some of them are very good ones.

However, these arguments are entirely separate from the arguments that seek to exclude specific groups from inclusion in the Marriage Act. The two issues are frequently and wrongly conflated.

Whether or not marriage is the best way for human beings to conduct a loving life together, I don't know, and I suspect nobody else does either at this stage.

This does not mean that those who choose this path are either self absorbed individualists, or staggering about in an erotic haze, robbed of their ability to reason. Though of course there are undoubtedly people who fit these descriptions who are married.

No matter what, my point still stands. Whatever the current state of marriage, however much it needs attention and renewal, this is solely the responsibility of heterosexuals. To claim that gay and lesbian marriages will somehow contaminate the institution is bizarre

"Whether or not all homosexuals have a different concept of marriage from “most of us” has not been determined. But whether they do or not is actually quite irrelevant in terms of the effects of their concepts on heterosexual marriage"

Do all heterosexua's have the same concept of marriage. I suggest that concept, even among heterosexuals has varied and changed over the centuries, where once maaraige was seen by Kings and the male wealthy as a easy way of protecting their wealth.

Well then I say again, bother to do some research, a suspicion consistently applied must needs be suspicious of itself. You don't indicate that you know the 'what' of latter-day political liberalism.

The individualism is found most fundamentally in its nominalism; in its primacy of the will, a will that denies that things have natures. A will that is believed is possessed of a power to redefine a thing with an essence as if it had no essence, no nature that can be grasped by the human intellect.

Natures do things; they have purposes; hearts pump blood, eyes see, cats do catlike things and pursue the fulfillment of their catness- they do not pursue the purposes characteristic of plants or hippos, and so can't develop into these creatures. Marriage is some THING. It performs a function. It is in the grasping of this purpose that the state quite rightly recognises its natural interest in its promotion and preservation - the continuity of the nation through time, development of children, complementarity of male and female nature. People may choose marriage utterly ignorant of these dimensions but those who propose fundamental changes at the level of public policy MAY NOT BE.

If you can't see how gay culture has effected dramatic changes in the last twenty years and so can't see how gay marriage might have dramatic effects on marriage norms then, I say, you are willfully blind. The same willful blindness cannot see how legalising gay marriage logically implies the legalisation of all kinds of polyamorous/polygamous/intergenerational unions when erotic love is considered to be marriage's essence.

The renewal of marriage begins with heterosexuals indeed, and for this reason they absolutely duty bound to refuse putting a final nail it's coffin by redefining and abolishing an institution they have already profoundly corroded. The work of marriage renewal, and therefore defence of marriage against redefinition has been courageously enjoined by many ss attracted people already - read their blogs and websites and follow them.

I think love is (hopefully) considered to be the essence of marriage, and the erotic is but one of the many expressions of that love, both within and without marriage.

There is no doubt that gay culture has brought about changes in the last twenty years. And this is a problem because?

A society must be prepared to change, otherwise it will stagnate. Fear of change often manifests as a moral objection.

It's not clear just what changes you think same sex marriage will make inevitable in marriage generally.

For example, there are heterosexual marriages where the parties don't want children. Does this mean they don't have "real" marriages?

The conflation of same sex marriage with polygamy is a common one, but it makes no sense. Same sex couples aren't struggling for the right to marry several partners. I'm not aware of any campaign by polygamists, same sex or otherwise, to be included in the Marriage Act.

<<In our culture, marriage is still an extremely powerful public and legal acknowledgment of love and commitment.>>

"In our culture, marriage is still"> between a man and a woman.
How can you talk about "our culture" when you are hell-bent on radically changing a fundamental tenet of our culture.
It won't be our culture anymore, it will be "gay culture".

<<This acknowledgement ought to be available to anyone who wants it.>>
Incestuous couples want it. Why do you exclude them?

<<anyone who wants it>>
Polyamorous couples want it. Why do you exclude them?

<<very similar arguments were made...against marriage between blacks and whites.>>

Here is a valid analogy:
"Very similar arguments" to yours are currently being employed in Canada with the aim of legalising polygamous marriage.
"Very similar arguments" to yours would support incestuous marriage.

Yours in an invalid analogy.
Race is immutable.
Sexual behaviour is mutable.
Just check the ex-gay web-sites.

<<there is not one amongst us who has the right to judge which loving way is right, and which loving way is wrong.>>

So you do support incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage.

Why won't you publicly make a stand for these "ways of loving"?

As for domestic violence:
"Nearly 4 Million Californians Report Sexual or Physical Violence from a Spouse or Companion
UCLA Study Find that Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals Are at Particularly High Risk"
http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/NewsReleaseDetails.aspx?id=51

Normal marriage may be disorderly but, unlike homosexual "marriage", it is not intrinsically disordered.

Proxy - As far as I'm aware there aren't currently any campaigns in this country to legalise polygamous or incestuous marriage, so I don't feel a necessity to publicly speak about either of them one way or the other. Both these situations are very different from same sex marriage, and each situation needs to be addressed separately.

I hope that answers your question.

I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that "our" culture won't be "our" culture anymore it will be "gay" culture, if ssm is legal. That's your personal catastrophic expectation, not a reasonable argument against ssm.

Gays and lesbians are part of "our" culture. They play football, work in hospitals, teach, join the police force, become judges, drive racing cars, win swimming medals, produce tv shows, run businesses - have you been living under a rock?

There can be no reasonable discussion on ssm when one party adopts such an illogical and unsubstantiated position.

Good grief... Ebenezer Cooke is channeling CJ MORGAN... word for word.

Could not be a sock puppet by any chance?

MAREELORRAINE you say:

"Does the realization dawn on anyone that by changing the marriage laws, we will be changing the face of society."

I stronggggly encourage you to listen to the link I provided before.
It covers the change in British law and the social impact which coincided with those changes over a couple of decades.
http://www.christianheritageuk.org.uk/Media/Player.aspx?media_id=41713&file_id=44708

Then you say:

Allowing gay marriages to be legal will not make gay or heterosexual marriages perfect. Society is not perfect. In my opinion legislating for gay marriages will not make gay people any happier,

Indeed! But the thing is....this is not, and has never been about 'making gays happier' other than in a political sense. This is the fulfilment of an ideology which found it's genesis (for western academia) in this essay from the 60s. (Herber Marcuse-'Progressive/New-Marxist'

REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

//THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for INTOLERANCE toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.//

BRIAR ROSE.....

//Proxy - As far as I'm aware there aren't currently any campaigns in this country to legalise polygamous or incestuous marriage,//

You need to broaden your outlook as to what is happening elsewhere.

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2010/09/legalized_child.html

"Booklets from a subsidiary of the German government's Ministry for Family Affairs encourage parents to sexually massage their children as young as 1 to 3 years of age. Two 40-page booklets entitled "Love, Body and Playing Doctor" by the German Federal Health Education Center (Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung - BZgA) are aimed at parents - the first addressing children from 1-3 and the other children from 4-6 years of age."

If you listen to that link I provided, you will find references to the following:

-Intergenerational sex (Adult child)
-Incest

as they pertain to sex education and government policy.

It might open your eyes a tad.

"This country" does not mean squat I'm afraid.. but there IS a campaign for Polygamy.... good old Keyser Trad (you do read the papers don't you?)

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-should-polygamy-be-a-crime-20091002-gfdg.html

I still haven't read any post that explains the connection between same sex marriage, and polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Some posters seem to be assuming an inherent connection between all three, but it isn't enough just to make a personal assumption. If you want to include it in an argument against ssm then you need to explain what the connection is.

Thanks to everyone who's offered me advice on how to broaden my mind. But I'd still like you to explain these connections.

Perhaps one day in the future, when inter-galactic travel is a way of life and humans meet creatures from other planets - issues like sexual orientation won't really matter. But hopefully love will always still be around. Perhaps we will one day see that the survival of our planet depends on the dominance of peace and love. In order for this to happen however we have to recognise the fact that the only thing we can be responsible for is our own minds. We can't go on thinking that "other people are the problem." That only our way is the right way and that the people who disagree with us are bad. If you're against same-sex marriage - fair enough. That's your right. But your right does not extend to imposing your beliefs onto other people. FRankly I think that this issue should be raised in Parliament and put to a conscience vote.

What a lot of rubbish.
She actually brings up that ridiculous canard of blacks and whites. This has nothing to do with with racism, it has to do with institutions that reflect biological reality.

Marriage is based on the physical reality of male and female. All this stuff about 'orientation' is rubbish. Who cares what one feels, all that matters is what one is. A penis is not a vagina. Wilson simply makes a mess of understanding the issue.

It is not about what individuals do when they marry, it is about what defines the institution.
1. One of each sex.
2. Not closely related.
3. Both old enough.

Jennifer rails against the first one (in part), but fails to see that her line of thinking can equally be used for multiple partners, incest or child marriage, never mind even marriage with, say, a man and a horse.

Everybody can marry today so long as they meet the requirements. And those requirements are based on biological facts. Obviously that's too much for the fantasy world of Jennifer Wilson. Her 'argument' is null and void. Equality exists today - every man or woman can marry.

btw, her overall framework that such a thing as a heterosexual or homosexual as identity is false. In the real world of humans, there are males and females, end of story. Obviously Wilson’s qualifications are worthless and only have value in the echo chamber of like-minded extremist social engineers. The scary bit is that they want you to be forced to celebrate this perversion of marriage.

I note she doesn't ever explain to us how anal sex is healthy, in fact - the very thing that defines homosexuality she avoids mentioning. In contrast, I'm not aware of a real marriage being unable to avoid unhealthy sexual practices, nor it being 100% infertile. It's surely not in the interests of society to condone risky behaviour. Take your distorted and perverse agenda elsewhere, Jennifer. It's be fun to see you debate Bill sometime - now that would be a one-sided affair.

<<Gays and lesbians are part of "our" culture.
They play football, work in hospitals, teach, join the police force, become judges, drive racing cars, win swimming medals, produce tv shows, run businesses - have you been living under a rock?>>

Incestuous and polyamorous people are part of "our" culture.
They play football, work in hospitals, teach, join the police force, become judges, drive racing cars, win swimming medals, produce tv shows, run businesses - have you been living under a rock?

<<I still haven't read any post that explains the connection between same sex marriage, and polygamous and incestuous marriage.
Some posters seem to be assuming an inherent connection between all three, but it isn't enough just to make a personal assumption. If you want to include it in an argument against ssm then you need to explain what the connection is>>

The point is that any argument homosexual activists make can be equally applied to incestuous couples and polyamorous groups.

<<Marriage ought to be available to ANYONE who wants it>>
<<EVERYONE should have the fundamental human right to marry>>

When blanket statements such as these are made it is logically encumbent upon the person making the claim to demonstrate why others should be excluded, especially when the claims, as made, can equally be applied to people of all sexual perversions.

ie If marriage can be changed from a man and a woman to a man and a man
then why cannot it be similarly changed to a man and his brother or a woman and two men.

You have absolutely no right to exclude anyone from marrying
when you are demanding the "right" for anyone to marry.

The problem I have with same sex marriages is the repercussions such as the newly legislated birth certificates in Spain enacted by the new Socialist government which legalised same sex marriages.

Instead of "Mother" and "Father" (you know, the REAL parents)you have "Progenitor 1" and Progenitor 2" that is now stated on birth certificates, for the sake of equality.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/cover031506.htm

No more MAMA and PAPA but your parents are now from something sounding like they are from outer space. Meet the Progs.

Hasn't this taken away the natural given rights of heterosexuals and children allover? When it's a minority within a minority that has enforced this.

Is the world going mad? Oh the luxuries of so called human rights.

Reason and Proxy, we've reached the point in the debate where mature and civilised people agree to differ.
Thank you for your interest in my article.
Jennifer.

<<There can be no reasonable discussion on ssm when one party adopts such an illogical and unsubstantiated position>>
There can be no discussion at all when you fail to meaningfully address any points raised by anyone else.

One final question:
Can you publicly and honestly state that, everything else being equal, you believe that a child's interests are equally well-served whether that child is raised by its mother and father or whether that child is raised by two homosexual men?

"Yes nice people commit sodomy but nice people also fiddle with kids. This is not about being 'nice' people or not."
-runner

You believe pedophiles are 'nice people'? Dude, that's pretty fcuked up.

"This is about giving children a fair go rather than brainwashing them with the 'gay' agenda."
-runner

WTF? Exercise for the reader: propose a plausible causal mechanism by which legalising gay marriage leads to the brainwashing (the forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs) of children.

"It won't be our culture anymore, it will be "gay culture"."
-Proxy

ROFLMAO. Gosh, how I love your paranoia, Proxy. Giving equality to minority groups does not lead to a tyranny of the minority. If you're lucky, it might put a dent or two in the tyranny of the majority, by no means a bad thing (unless you support tyranny, of course).

When we decided to include Aboriginals in the census, did Australia transform magically over night into an Aboriginal culture? No, it stayed Western. When we gave women the vote, our culture magically transform from being male to female dominated? Well, no. So why on Earth do you think letting gays marry will magically transform our culture into something else? Is homosexuality the exception that proves the rule?

"Sexual behaviour is mutable.
Just check the ex-gay web-sites."
-Proxy

We've been over this already, champ. But you seem to be hard-of-thinking, so maybe I should spell it out for you.

YOU CAN'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET, no matter how credible some websites might appear (well, I suppose you can, but it'll leave you looking a right pillock). One of the funniest websites I've been to, Truthism, (www.truthism.com), claims that the sun is not spherical, but rather a cube. It's just that it spins so fast that it looks like a cube. Which is obviously complete bloody nonsense - there is no evidence that says that the sun is cubical, and a truckload that says it is a sphere.
To be continued...

...continued
But if you really believe that assertions made by random strangers on the internet meet the same standard of proof as solid evidence, then you should a) check out Truthism - it'll blow your tiny mind and b) take into account my contradictory assertion that sexuality is not mutable, 'coz I've tried and failed.

Or is it only assertions that concur with your pre-conceived notions that meet the same standard of proof as solid evidence, whilst contradictory assertions may be dismissed out-of-hand as 'progressive propaganda'?

"I note she doesn't ever explain to us how anal sex is healthy, in fact - the very thing that defines homosexuality she avoids mentioning."
-ReasonM_123

Homsexuality is not defined by or as anal sex. Look it up in dictionary - if it says 'homosexuality: 1. Anal sex', I'll eat my left arm. And I'm pretty sure that about half the homosexual population has very, very litle anal sex - the lesbian half.

"The point is that any argument homosexual activists make can be equally applied to incestuous couples and polyamorous groups."
-Proxy

Abject nonsense. This statement would only be true if incestuous relationships and polyamorous groups were equivalent to homosexual relationships. They're not; the only person who honestly seems to believe they are is you, Proxy; and thus far, you have completely failed to establish why anybody other than yourself should regard them as equivalent.

"You have absolutely no right to exclude anyone from marrying
when you are demanding the "right" for anyone to marry."
-Proxy

The only person demanding the right for anyone to marry is you, Proxy. The rest of us are arguing for the rights of gay adults to marry - a whole different kettle of fish.

"Can you publicly and honestly state that, everything else being equal, you believe that a child's interests are equally well-served whether that child is raised by its mother and father or whether that child is raised by two homosexual men?"
-Proxy

Yes.

Proxy - the argument had become repetitive, which is a sign that it is over.

However, consider the following.

Any arguments about polygamous marriage will be numerical arguments, based on whether or not a man or a woman can legally marry more than one spouse.

The arguments about incestuous marriage will be based around the advisability of people marrying their blood relatives.

The arguments about ssm are based on the gender of the couple concerned.

Does this demonstrate why the three arguments have nothing to do with one another?

You ask me: "Can you publicly and honestly state that, everything else being equal, you believe that a child's interests are equally well-served whether that child is raised by its mother and father or whether that child is raised by two homosexual men?"

What do you mean by "everything else being equal," and how do you make everything else, whatever that might be, equal?

Without knowing your answer to those questions, my view is that it is impossible to honestly answer your question. There is no blanket answer.

Children raised by their mothers and fathers can suffer unspeakably, as we well know. Having a mother and father does not guarantee safety, security and happiness, unfortunately.

While I know homosexual couples, I don't know a couple who are raising a child. It's probably too soon for there to have been any in depth studies of children raised by gay men.

As for the men I know, I would have been extremely grateful for them to take over the raising of my sons, had that ever become necessary.

This is because they are human beings I respect and love, and their sexual preference does not affect my feelings for them. I can't see why it should.

The focus on anal sex in these posts is weird. This is just as much a heterosexual practice.

The case for same-sex marriage is a case for equality. Nothing more, nothing less. The reason the polygamy and incest slippery-slope furphies are irrelevant here is because they are essentially unequal.

>> Any arguments about polygamous marriage will be numerical
>> arguments, based on whether or not a man or a woman can
>> legally marry more than one spouse.

In contrast to SSM, which requires by definition equality within marriage, where they are currently allowed, polygamous marriages are inherently unequal. The female parties to the arrangement are invariably subjugated to the male, who holds all the power in the relationship, sometimes to the extent that the male "owns" his wives. This explains why SSM and polygamous marriage are mutually exclusive: no jurisdictions that allow SSM also allow polygamy, and vice versa.

>> The arguments about incestuous marriage will be based
>> around the advisability of people marrying their blood
>> relatives.

Similar to polygamy, incestuous relationships almost always involve an abuse of power, where one partner exploits a vulnerable relative. Cases that can be argued as genuine equal relationships, such as siblings separated at birth who later meet and fall in love http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/rules-of-attraction-take-strange-twist/story-e6frg6to-1111115309227 are extremely rare. While these are indeed harrowing cases, and (quite independently of the SSM debate) the law is struggling to find a compassionate way of dealing with them, there's no reason why they should have any bearing at all on the same-sex couples in this country who seek marriage equality.

Finally, appealing to our resident homophobes as "mature and civilised people" is very generous, but ultimately a misapprehension - you're detecting civility where none exists. The best that can be said about them is that they are consistent in their pushing of the same tired, discredited claims. The best way to deal with them is to ignore them: http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/454/dbe/454dbe4b-6a87-4e0d-8c0d-5ff7b6ca9569

The only problem with ignoring them is that their voices then dominate the debate.

There has been so much homophobic material published on this site lately (two more articles today) that one has to attempt to achieve balance, even though it means engaging with the same old same old.

"The female parties to the arrangement are invariably subjugated to the male, who holds all the power in the relationship, sometimes to the extent that the male "owns" his wives.
-woulfe

Poppycock. Polyamorous relationships do not necessarily involve patriarchal dominance. How do you arrive at such a strange notion?

"This explains why SSM and polygamous marriage are mutually exclusive: no jurisdictions that allow SSM also allow polygamy, and vice versa."
-woulfe

Once more I say: Poppycock. Same sex marriage and polygamy are by no means mutually exclusive. Just because no jurisidictions presently allow both, it doesn't follow that it's an impossibility.

But all this beside the point. The point is that polygamy and SSM are two horses of a very different colour, and Proxy's constant (and constantly poor) efforts to conflate the two are highly disingenuous, and they will never actually make polygamy equivalent to homosexuality. Whether or not polygamy should be legalised is a whole different argument, one that I won't be drawn into here, as it's exactly what Proxy wants ('coz then we won't be arguing about gay marriage, a debate where Proxy knows he hasn't a leg to stand on, save his own emotions and prejudices).

"The focus on anal sex in these posts is weird."
-briar rose

You're telling me. All these blokes with a singular fixation on male homosexuals and anal sex - makes you wonder about them, doesn't it? I'm sure that not even gay males have such a strong interest in what other gay males do in bed, and they at least have good reason to.

When I find something unpleasant or distasteful, I tend to think about it as little as possible. For example, I am not a fan of cats - but I don't obsess over them. People tend to focus their thoughts on things they find fascinating, exciting or enjoyable, rather than things they find unpleasant. I won't draw any conclusions about what this means for the anally-fixated homophobes 'coz I know it will just upset them, so I'll leave the intelligent folk to connect the dots for themselves.

>> Poppycock

Hehe

I love your robust style of debating, Riz, but I do wish you'd read first, then expostulate.

Picking up on Jennifer's comments on polygamy, I said "where they are currently allowed, polygamous marriages are inherently unequal."

I deliberately refrained from talking about polyamory, because I'm not familiar with any research on polyamorous relationships, and as far as I'm aware I don't know any people living in polyamorous arrangements.

Sure, equitable polyamorous relationships are possible (wasn't the actor Jack Thompson living in one?). However since they're not relevant to this debate, and since I don't know much about them, I limited myself to talking about officially recognised polygamous marriages, which are indeed inherently unequal. They will remain inherently unequal until those countries that recognise polygamous marriages between one man and multiple women also recognise marriages between one woman and multiple men.

A campaign for the recognition of polyamorous relationships appears to be only in the minds of our more rabid correspondents here on OLO. Should official recognition ever get up, then I guess we will indeed be calling them polygamous marriages, and we can then revisit the question of whether SSM and polygamous marriage co-exist. However for the moment at least, in practice if not in theory, they are indeed mutually exclusive.

>> The only problem with ignoring them is that their
>> voices then dominate the debate.

A very real risk, though I think you're over-valuing forums like OLO. As I've said before http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191&page=0#75897 this is the land of the entrenched view, a battlefield where open-minded inhabitants quickly become wounded refugees.

The advantage of this place is that on any given issue it's a convenient showcase for the best and worst opinions around. It's also a good platform for honing arguments to use in places where they matter, because the real debates are happening elsewhere, in workplaces and pubs, at barbecues and parent-teacher nights.

The anti-SSM crowd clearly think that they are being crowded out of the debate, but as I've pointed out recently, there's no shortage of anti-SSM coverage in all areas of the media, including the ABC and Fairfax http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11268#190392 Bleating about a left-wing media conspiracy to suppress anti-SSM views is yet another way in which the homophobes show that they've lost the plot.

I reckon the coverage is fairly even. At the same time I'm gratified that the SSM-opponents are so transparently loopy (and the two articles on OLO today are excellent examples).

<<The focus on anal sex in these posts is weird>>

<<You're telling me. All these blokes with a singular fixation on male homosexuals and anal sex - makes you wonder about them, doesn't it? I'm sure that not even gay males have such a strong interest in what other gay males do in bed, and they at least have good reason to.>>

Anal sex is the sine qua non of male homosexuality.
What is weird is people who practise this particular perversion calling those who point to it as being weird and anally fixated.
No, homosexuals are anally fixated, as demonstrated by their obscenely high rates of HIV/AID's, syphilis, MRSA, anal cancer, etc.
And then they claim to have no idea why this should be so!
Gay bathhouses, gay beats, gloryholes, anonymous sex, barebacking, rimming, felching, etc, etc, etc, are overwhelmingly peculiarly homosexual practices.
"Gay" culture!
And you want to call it marriage.

Thanks Proxy for being a voice of reason.

-Ms Wilson. Love may be what marriage and other relationships have in common, but marriage excludes as well as includes in its definition. It's what marriage excludes by being what it is that's the subject of our discussion. I think I've been clear what is distinctive about marriage.

-I made no judgment about the effect of gay culture on society as a whole - for the purposes of my argument I only needed to make the obvious point that profound changes had occurred. You denied marriage redefinition would have any effect on heterosexuals - even good ones. This is manifestly false.

-I twice elaborated on the manifold public effects of ss marriage. Review my posts. What isn't clear about these effects?

-Marriage plainly implies children. That procreation is sometimes frustrated intentionally or by natural defect, doesn’t change what marriage is. That a couple cannot or will not have children only means their marriage is not fully functional. That the state cannot afford the expense or disruption to civil peace that it would mean to coerce fully functional marriages, tells us only what law should and should not do - not what marriage is. You mean to make an exception the rule, as if the existence of luekaemia buffudled us to what bone marrow does in the ordinary course of things - and so had to go to the expense of examining everyone's bone marrow by way of blood test. Law should not be used to examine every couple's intention or fertility.

-You ignore how polygamists/polyamorists are organising to stake their claim for the state's blessing after ss redefinition. It seems only you can't see the logical implications. If what defines marriage now is no logical barrier what makes mere number a barrier? You would discriminate against their 'love', which you say is the essence of marriage, and which they say for them is multiplied, diverse and many faceted? Using mere number here is just a useful fiction.

-You use the term 'homophobia' - given your morally unserious and superficial article what stops me from labelling you heterophobic?

The likes of Jennifer Wilson PhD will be having us emulate Britain where:

Homosexual men are preferred candidates for fostering pubescent boys and are not called to task for sexually abusing their charges because that would be "discriminatory"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html

People should not be excluded from adopting children just because they are sex offenders. That would be discrimination.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/nov/30/sex-offenders-adoption-children

Normal couples with a long history of fostering children are banned from looking after children if they refuse to homosexually indoctrinate them
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8096785/Christian-couple-who-cannot-accept-homosexuality-challenge-their-fostering-ban.html

Look at all the good work social justice activists are doing in the United Kingdom Jennifer.

Why don't you go over there instead and give our children a chance at a normal life?

"I do wish you'd read first, then expostulate."
-woulfe

Ah, I think I see the source of the confusion: you appear to be confusing polygyny with polygamy - google it. Polygyny without polyandry is obviously inequitable.

"Anal sex is the sine qua non of male homosexuality."
-Proxy

No, it isn't, and we've already covered this subject. Sophistry - the first refuge of the idiot.

"What is weird is people who practise this particular perversion calling those who point to it as being weird and anally fixated."
-Proxy

Look, are you trying to insinuate something?

"Thanks Proxy for being a voice of reason."
-runner

Gold! Pure fcuking gold! I nearly fell off my chair laughing, runner. You win my 'Sarcastic Remark of the Month' award.

GAY SUPPORT for DERBY COUNCIL.

Ben Summerskill, Stonewall chief executive, said: “Too often in fostering cases nowadays it’s forgotten that it is the interests of a child, and not the prejudices of a parent, that matter.

INTERESTS of the CHILD.. yes.. unTIL a gay couple start abusing that child....

"The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of people not 'thinking the unthinkable'.

"The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of people not 'thinking the unthinkable'. (from Proxy's link)

THEN.....it's 'ok'....

The idenftiable inversion of values...where good is now 'evil' and evil is now 'good'.... is almost complete.

Herbert Marcuse, if it were possible, is rejoicing in socialist utopia with a very self satisfied look on his deathly face.

//The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed//

When you see this happening b4 your very eyes... are you still blind to it?

Honestly..it's time for conservative Christians AND socially conservative atheists to join forces, stand up and politically FIGHT against this increasingly all pervading manifest evil

<<How fragile is the institution of marriage that its proponents must circle their wagons against any and every perceived threat?>>

How fragile is the “gay” position when it must be reinforced by grossly inequitable actions such as taking children away from their natural mothers because the mothers no longer embrace lesbianism?

We can look forward toward more of this form of “social justice” as homosexual activists further embed themselves into positions of power, aided and abetted by their unthinking supporters.

Same sex "marriage" will lead to further social injustice.

Nice work, all you supporters of the homosexual agenda who haven't thought through the implications.