"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?