Squeers mate 50% of hetrosexual marriages end in divorce, so whats your point!

Kipp,
My point is that philosophically-savvy GLBT's who buy into queer theory (putatively a sub-set of Marxist theory) cannot believe in the institution they wish to colonise. Even looking for a secular, judicially-legitimate pairing must amount to naivety or duplicitous interpellation: subscribing to an institution in order to white-ant it and perpetuate a gradualist revolution. Worthy as this motive is (in my view), I don't think it will ever succeed. The system and its institutions, cynically presided over by capitalist interests (money is the real god of our society but no one will own to it), will adapt (bend over backwards) as much as necessary to preserve the relations of production (keep all parties happy)--that is, the economic status quo, for which the institutions are a sincere sham.
So the politically-minded GLBT's are indeed would-be social engineers. The rest are just bleary-eyed brats and party animals with chips on shoulders or a FTW attitudes respectively.
Sorry I can't be more feely-cuddly about this, but it's the truth.
I can't believe Gregory Storey and partner fit into the latter category (though maybe they do..) and ergo they're disingenuous. Like the Greens, they dress their real political intent in seeming garb.
I'de vote for that, but like I say, I don't believe a) it will succeed, or b) that they'd follow through. Identity politics always ends up ideologically parochial.

But I'm wasting words, you blokes are either naive or you don't want to blow your cover.

Squeers have you spoken to anyone about your social thinking?

Hey Squeers, I think I agree with you, although in my lexicon 'wheelbarrow' rates pretty high. ("duplicitous interpellation"; bloody nearly need a wheelbarrow for that one.)
If it's a church 'marriage' the gays are talking about, I really don't understand why anyone would want to be part of a religion that wants no part of them. If it is only a civil union, then I agree with Peter Hume; it's none of the state's dam' business what people do in their free time.
Same as women wanting to be priests. It seems they're saying "I totally believe in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God, and I believe in the Bible... Once it changes just a little, to accommodate me, it'll be perfect."
Personally, I think they might be duplicitously interpellating.
But I could be wrong.

G'day Grim (and anyone else interested),

<<Same as women wanting to be priests. It seems they're saying "I totally believe in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God, and I believe in the Bible... Once it changes just a little, to accommodate me, it'll be perfect." Personally, I think they might be duplicitously interpellating.>>

Just for the record, the Anglican Church in various parts of the world, including much of Australia, has many female priests and female bishops. The Western Australian Province ordained the first ones a little over 20 years ago, and I think it started some years before that in a few parts of North America.

The acceptance of gay priests and bishops is taking longer to break through but there is significant progress -- not without considerable vociferous opposition and angst, of course.

And all of this is happening without one jot of the Bible being changed! The Bible is not a book of rules and a new image of God more in tune with contemporary human knowledge is steadily being accepted as part of the emergent Christian paradigm.

"Greg then used the red cross to complain, as did a Michael Barnett. Of course neither of them told me that they were partners. This gave the impression that there was more concern about the comments than there actually was." -- Graham Young

Graham, I didn't notice any requirement to declare my marital status when flagging a comment for deletion. Perhaps you could implement that feature if you feel it necessary.

You are effectively saying that because I am in a relationship with someone else who found some comments objectionable that we aren't both capable of independent thought. You might find there are couples in circles you mix in where one partner has limited mental capacity, but in the circles I mix in I find both partners tend to have full cognitive function. If Gregory posted a message to a mailing list that I am subscribed to, don't you feel it reasonable that I may have decided to act on that message independently of my being in a relationship with him?

Further, I assume that because I am in a relationship with someone who you have felt it necessary to discuss here that I have relinquished any privacy I have to my actions on this site.

You have raised doubts in my mind about your professional integrity.

Michael.