"Mount your arguments against gay marriage, therefore; but leave out the claims that you “just don’t believe it’s right”. Whether you would like it, or even approve of it is irrelevant. Show harm, or you have no basis to deny civil rights to all."

Yes! Thank you for a clear, reasoned and well argued article.

And that's a great quote about the tyranny of democracy.

Good morning Briar Rose!

Well this is a very strange situation. For James to argue civil rights injustice based on majority dictate to minority as wrong, he is defeated from the start on this one. Apparently my counter view is in the 60/40 minority (according to statistics of Gay activists) therefore I win; thanks James.

I do wonder why the state still has any involvement in marriage, gay or otherwise. Medium to long term unions are now covered by a range of legislation relating to wealth distribution, domestic violence, wills and probate and so on. In these circumstances, why not let marriage be a private matter between two individuals without any involvement of government at all? Celebrants, religious or civil would need to be free to refuse to marry people if their religious beliefs are offended. Otherwise, let a thousand unions bloom.

Briar Rose: thank you for the kind comment. =)

Diver Dan: well, it's not that simple. If the majority won't let the minority do something, it's not necessarily a rights situation. If the majority won't let a minority do something that the majority IS allowed to do, and there's no compelling reason to not let them do it, THEN it may be a rights situation. While it's tempting to boil issues down to 'the minority wins', nothing in life is actually that simple, and that's not the argument I presented.

You are correct; my post was intended to be facetious. The problem with the Gay argument is one you neglect to mention: I.E. the irrelevance of the gay marriage debate. Your example of Aboriginal rights to vote highlighted a legitimate and urgent issue of genuine social anomaly and is not in the same “ball park” of social relevance.

Gays enjoy the same freedoms as all in our community under the law now and could not genuinely claim discrimination under any human rights charter. Their claim for same sex marriage rights is simply a facetious nonsense; and on those grounds I worded my comments to which you objected.

Could I suggest though you devote your valuable time and talents to the defence of more deserving causes of the minority element in society: Those who are genuinely discriminated against in communities and in employment prospects for example, to the disabled of all genders and sexual leanings, to race discrimination and the myriad of other minorities with a genuine cause! The minorities not necessarily seconded by the popularist Bob Brown and his Greens/Pink brigade of the moment.

There should be no call for "gay marriage" it really is just marriage.

I'm yet to see a single reason from denying that all citizens be treated the same in this regard. Marry whoever you want, it has no impact on you or your marriage/relationship.

Diver Dan again provides no reason to deny the right to marry to everyone. If it's so unimportant to be 'facetious nonsense' then just allow marriage for all.

GP: Hit the nail on the head. If it doesn't matter, why stop it? I say again: show reasons to deny it, or allow it. Something cannot simultaneously be something we don't care about yet something we must block.

Dan: I do see the Aboriginal situation of the 1960s as more fundamental than this. However, when it comes to civil rights, they must all be taken seriously. The point is to say in that case, the majority saw an injustice and corrected it, even though that injustice affected only a minority. I understand that this issue does not matter TO YOU. It matters to others; and for any form of rights framework to function properly, then we must support those rights that do not only affect ourselves, but others. By doing so, we ensure our OWN rights.

Dan: the issue of gay marriage is important precisely because it is symbolic. There is no rational case whatsoever against banning it. It is kept off the agenda purely by agitation and string-pulling by people who find it disgusting or terrifying that other people should have different kinds of sexual urges from themselves. A public and legal acceptance of gay marriage would be a major step towards demonstrating that we value and aspire to a society in which all people are viewed as equal, and decisions are based on the greatest good of the greatest number, not Bronze Age codes founded on ignorance and hatred.

As I understand it, secular systems, states - e.g., our state and federal systems - recognise civil unions, and strictly speaking, it is up to churches to recognise those unions by overseeing marriage. Civil unions: secular authorities, marriages: religious authorities. If this is correct, then issues to do with marriage are not really the business of secular authorities.

But what the hell, do it, get it off the agenda and let's get back to more important issues.

I find the comparison between Indigenous rights in the sixties and same-sex-marriage rights frankly offensive: I don't really care where somebody shoves it, up each other, up dogs, in a hole in a wall, but don't compare this piddly issue with the rights of human beings to equality and opportunity, to the sorts of rights that non-Indigenous people have taken for granted for generations. Such a comparison is contemptible and trivialises what discrimination means.

It's only fifty or sixty years since Indigenous people were allowed to finish primary school. It's barely fifty years since they were allowed, in many states, to ASSOCIATE with non-Indigenous people - to put that on some sort of comparative plane, imagine if homosexuals were labelled and not allowed to go to secondary school, mix with other people (okay, bad example), live in towns or cities, or aspire to the same sorts of careers as other people.

I really think that some people haven't got a clue what discrimination means. God save us from this self-obsessed focus on petty issues, when there are so many more important issues to resolve.

Joe

Senior Victorian comes close to acceptable compromise suggesting the removal of the Government from the equation, but how? The ship of Marriage has been mortally wounded over recent years by heavy handed Government interventions equalising de-facto and marriage unions in law as only one example.

Question is, because what remains of the institution is so politically irrelevant, what mechanism would, at this point, painlessly remove unnecessary Government oversight of marriage allowing segments of the community, such as the opponents of SS Marriage, to safely ignore personally important biases and feel less threatened by a looming Government dictate on the issue?

The Labor Government is nervous of compromise on this issue. Their decision will be a catalyst moment in my voting life for sure; the wrong decision will signal the need for a change in my allegiance, and will be the proof I need to indicate that Bob Brown and not Julia Gillard is the serving Prime Minister

Loudmouth: This is a piddly issue to you. I get that. That doesn't mean that it's a piddly issue to everyone. Now, had I directly compared this aspect of civil rights to the importance of the 1967 referendum, then that would have been offensive. I didn't. I used it as an illustration of how people can take seriously the rights of those other than themselves. I further say that in the arena of civil rights, ALL rights are important. Not necessarily of equal importance, but of importance, yes. There is no such thing as a 'piddly' right. If it's piddly, why quash it? Again: give me reasons to deny it, don't just tell me it's a nothing issue.

Thanks, however, for telling people how they should feel about something that affects their life, merely because it doesn't matter to you. That's open-minded.

In regards to marriage being religious, no, it's both in this modern state. Churches can sanction marriages, but so can civil celebrants. Government is in the marriage business and has been for a very very long time. And of course it is, given the number of ways that marriage changes one's relation with official bodies.

Diver Dan: I never have understood why, to be important, marriage must be unique. Can you explain this to me?

James Carman. *show harm* (or shut up?)

SIMPLE.

Accept gay marriage and you MUST by reason and "civil rights" accept/legalize POLYGAMY because that is the 'religious freedom' for a Muslim.

Then...you must by reason of NOT being allowed to say "But I don't think it's right" ALSO destigmatize and LEGALize:

-Intergenerational/homosexual sex acts. (Read NAMBLA)
-INCEST. (we can protect against unwanted pregnancy now...remember!)
-Bestiality. (no prengancy worries there!)
-Age of consent down to...hmmm err..say 7 or 8 ?

Now..trying to pen this argument issue into JUST 'gay marriage' is not only ridiculous and absurd it is offensive and insulting.

So let me affirm...there is PLENTY of *HARM* to our social structure, our morality and our social well being from allowing gay marriage.

Speaking from a religious perspective now... as far as God is concerned.. homosexual behavior is an abomination, and:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26)

Why did God give them over to such things ?

"the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie," Rom 1:24/25

*THAT*'s why!

I suggest also, that the above, is one reason Bob Brown and the Greens are sooooo Christaphobic.
Rather than legalize gay marriage...let's challenge Christphobia.

James,

Yes, you are right, all human rights issues are important. But some of those issues are like icing on the cake, some are like the 100s and 1000s sprinkled on the icing on the cake, and some are the cake.

And yes, you are also right that we should "take seriously the rights of those other than themselves". That was my point too :) To me, that is the difference between being 'radical' and being 'progressive':

* a radical will passionately champion the interests of his or her own group;

* a progressive will passionately champion the rights of people other than his or her own group.

I guess, for those of us who are neither homosexual nor Indigenous, and with finite resources, we have to make choices about who to go into bat for, choices perhaps based on some criteria of hardship, history, degree of oppression - basically, on the level of deprivation of rights. On balance, those with a legacy of fewer rights and more restrictions 'deserve' more support, given the limits on one's time and financial resources.

The right to full and equal lives, the right not to be burdened with the legacy of discrimination, not to be held back by the past, such as getting jailed for being in town after 5 pm or aspiring only to the meanest of jobs, the right to vote in one's own country, to associate with whomever one wishes and to get the schooling for one's children that other people take for granted - these differences in what restrictions Blacks and Whites have had imposed on them, sort of force the issue, James. History unfairly imposes legacies which are often very difficult to throw off.

Let people marry who they like, yada yada, and then let's get on with more important issues.

Joe

Let people marry who they like; Not a good idea. There's an argument going now about custody battles because people have had relations with who ever they like.

ALGORE: the harms you mention come not from gay marriage, but from additional issues. You're putting forward a slippery slope argument, one with no real foundation. In fact, you yourself provide the solution to it: with those things that cause harm, harm can be shown. Therefore, that provides a reason not to enact them. Enacting gay marriage itself causes no harm, even by your reasoning.

As for your religious viewpoint, I'll simply state that Christians are not uniform on this topic and there are many points of view, then leave it with 'I don't care what religion says. Keep religion out of politics and we'll keep politics out of religion.'

Loudmouth: 'Let people marry who they like and get on with more important issues' -- yes please. I'd like that. The fact that this issue WOULD be so easy to deal with, and in my opinion is not merely peripheral, because all civil rights eventually lean on each other. Yes, as individuals we must choose our battles. But as a society, no. If you as an individual have the energy to fight battle A but not battle B, so be it, you're only human. But the least you can do is not stand in the way of battle B. Don't give cover to those saying B is too much effort. As a society, if we start picking and choosing civil rights, then we have no true rights at all.

Society does not offer any legitimate and genuine rights.

Of the "rights" it does offer, they are either used against you or denied as society sees fit.

Take "due process". We all know that Martin Bryant was denied due process. But did you know that this is happening even in smaller cases?

Here is an example : http://www.Truthmedia.8k.com/trials.html

Yes, the Boaz slippery slope to hell. How many times have we heard that one.

>>Accept gay marriage and you MUST by reason and "civil rights" accept/legalize POLYGAMY because that is the 'religious freedom' for a Muslim.<<

As the article's author points out - rather well, I thought - the same arguments were trotted out, all those years ago, to perpetuate the "white people only marry white people" tradition.

It would be churlish, of course, to point out that your Bible specifically allows polygamy. And incest, naturally.

It would be even more churlish to point out that there are Christian churches around the world that are happy with polygamy. It even got a mention in the 1988 Lambeth conference, specifically allowing multiple wives to "be admitted in some cases to baptism". Although why the wives would want to, beats me.

It would be yet more churlish still, I suspect, to point out that the age of consent in Vatican City is 14. Until 1929, it was 12. And in biblical times...?

Ah yes, the obligatory, carefully chosen biblical quote...

>>Speaking from a religious perspective now... as far as God is concerned.. homosexual behavior is an abomination...<<

...followed by a verse from Paul's lecture to the Romans.

How did Paul's personal prejudices, pray tell us, suddenly get attributed to God? Because let's face it, Paul was basically a misogynist, if not a full-blown misanthrope. Hardly a credible witness for the prosecution.

Now, if you could find somewhere that one of the chroniclers actually attributed the same sentiments to Jesus...

Your biblical-based argumentation is verily built upon sand, Boaz.

And you know it.

<<Gay marriage: a democracy must not mean the majority deciding what is right for the minority.>>

But surely “the majority deciding what is right for the minority” is far preferable to the minority deciding what is right for the majority?
Especially when it inevitably leads to travesties such as children being taken away from their natural mothers and given to their former lesbian partners because the mother no longer supports the homosexual agenda.

It's not civil rights if it leads to uncivil wrongs.

Proxy by your postings you appear to have personal emotional issues in your life, that you have not addressed.
This weakness in your being, is shown by your denigrating easy targets, without evidence and without forthought to what you are saying.
You obviously have been hurt in your life, to be so vitirolic towards others. Whatever it is, it is not your problem, and it can be resolved.

Virtually every argument in favour of gay marriage can apply when considrering the recent news of out Switzerland.

After all, why not let siblings get married...

Another domino falls.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html

quote

"The upper house of the Swiss parliament has drafted a law decriminalising sex between consenting family members which must now be considered by the government.

There have been only three cases of incest since 1984.

Switzerland, which recently held a referendum passing a draconian law that will boot out foreigners convicted of committing the smallest of crimes, insists that children within families will continue to be protected by laws governing abuse and paedophilia."

I can understand the Swiss decriminalising homosexual incest as it is their fundamental human right
and besides, what harm could it do?

But decriminalising heterosexual incest, how icky!

Here is further proof that homosexual "civil rights"
are not very far removed from incestuous "civil rights".

When a writer for the left-wing Huffingpost was arrested for having sex with his adult daughter
look what the "progressives" had to say:

"Why do we care who he has relations with? As long as he and his daughter don’t risk birth defect by procreating then consenting adults can do as they please. Many royals marry those very closely related, it’s only in our modern society that we find this practice odd."

"It’s ridiculous that there’s a law concerning this. If two (or more) parties are consenting adults, it’s none of the government’s business what kind of sex life they have."

"“Some things are simply always going to be appalling and thoroughly disgusting…” To you, perhaps. Do you want to be the sole arbiter of morality for everyone else in the world? Whatever will we do when you pass on?"

"This isn’t far away from arresting gay people for congregating in bar ala 1969. As the recipient of much maligning as a gay person historically, I would take a long deep breath before condemning the actions of another. May be some of you should too."

http://weaselzippers.us/2010/12/13/lefties-unsurprisingly-ok-with-incest-after-huff-po-writer-arrested-for-having-sex-with-his-daughter/

I bet our own progressives can hardly wait to come out in support of incest
but not until they've achieved their current goal of same-sex "marriage".

Proxy,

I really do think it is time to scrap these thoroughly out-dated notions of Left and Right - so often 'Left' is nothing better than 'opportunist', I'm ashamed to say: whatever works for 'our' side, and stuff principle.

I'm not interested in the Right, it is probably what it's always been. But the 'Left' really has disgraced itself so many times over the last twenty years, over Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, al Qa'ida, Morales' cocaine policy, etc. I wonder what might happen when they find out that China was behind the brutal suppression of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Probably not a peep.

I was born and raised on the Left. I realised from an early age that many in it were prone to opportunism and gutlessness, but I never dreamt that as a whole, it could sink so low as it has these last few years.

So we currently find so much outrage about Assange being pinged for rape, while there also is not a peep about Liu Xiao Bo getting eleven years for requesting that the Chinese government observe its own law, and for asking for freedom of speech and assembly, freedoms which the so-called 'Left' takes for granted.

Perhaps if Assange gets eleven years combined for rape, breaching some official Secrets Act or other, and various other trivial bits of law in various countries, he can be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Yes, freedom of speech, for both Assange and Liu Xiao Bo. I wonder whose legacy will last longest ?

Joe

Is same sex "marriage" a civil right?

70% of African Americans say no.
You'd think they'd have some idea wouldn't you?
Or are they just homophobic?
Hey, you can't say that.
That would be racist!

"Gays and lesbians “may want to cast their fight in civil-rights terms, and a lot of people are buying it. But not the faith community and especially not the black community,” says Bishop Harry Jackson, whose Hope Christian Church has a flock of 3,000 in the Washington, D.C., area. Indeed, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted yes on California’s Prop 8, and polls found similar levels of opposition among blacks for a marriage initiative in Florida that same year. After the Washington, D.C., City Council last year approved gay marriage in the District, Jackson joined forces with the National Organization for Marriage in petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to allow voters to decide on overturning the law. “Many African-Americans believe gays are discriminated against, but they don’t believe marriage is a civil-rights issue,” says Jackson, who says his father was threatened at gunpoint in the 1950s by a state trooper while working on a voter-registration drive. “There are issues of acceptance, but there is no back of the bus; there are no lynchings.” There is also the ongoing debate as to whether homosexuality is an immutable trait or a choice. “It’s not immutable,” says Jackson. “And it’s not an externally observable characteristic unless you want to flaunt it.”"
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/14/are-gay-rights-civil-rights.html?from=rss