H

>> In the end it's all this 'Gay Pride' which I have never been able to work out. I'm not 'proud' to be hetero, I just am. <<

Then you've never been abused for being hetero either have you? I'm guessing you're white also. The complacency of the dominant majority...

What possible impact on your white middleclass life could SSM have on a bloke like you? Aaaah I forgot your 'role' at OLO: 'agent provocateur'.

Ammonite,

Someone's got a new moniker huh? Whatever. You address me with some kind of familiarality, but I don't have the faintest who you are. Maybe you're a long time listener first time caller.

Your comprehension skills seem lacking. Either that or it is you who is the true provocateur.

My position is quite simple.

1. The effect of affording same sex marriage equal rights while not allowing same sex couples to marriage (ie recent changes to de-facto law), in effect, took away rights form heterosexual couples who wished to live in 'sin'. As the author says, 'It is achieving equality for some by taking something important away from many others, and that, I think, is not just. '. Although the author was talking about taking something away from married people, and I cant see 'what' has been taken away from them. Exclusivity? I dunno. De-facto couples are the ones who have had the right not to marry taken away.

2. I am in favour of same sex marriage, and in fact any mechanism where marriage is an explicit contract rather than an implicit, enforced, 'defacto' ruse. Though I really don't care too much as I don't really value marriage in any way.

Just how you have decided that I am against SSM in any way I'll never know.

'The complacency of the dominant majority...'

As I said, 'It is self evident that your sexuality would not be a source of shame. The idea is ridiculous, and attributing pride to such a thing gives bigots power.'

So, to spell it out for the vitriolic, chip on both shoulders harpie that is Ammonite, I don't think gay people have anything to be ashamed about, and I support them wholeheartedly, and I think letting bigots define you by reacting to them is counter-productive.

This in no way could be construed as a lack of empathy for gay people and the adversity they have faced, or an objection to SSM. Your response however can only be construed as a knee jerk reaction from an imbecile.

Next.

'I don't like it works pretty well in all sorts of areas. Public nudity, public sex, polygamy, Sex with animals.'

Not the same thing Houlley. One could easily mount a case for sex with animals as in the arena of cruelty and there is certainly no mutual consent; or that polygamy is set up to discriminate against women within our cultural bounds. In societies where polygamy is legal women are not allowed to take more than one husband (Islam, certain Christian sects such as within the Latter Day Saints).

Public nudity or public sex is a little harder to make a case for 'no harm' (unless perhaps children are depicted in faux sexual acts or similar), however it is not impossible. Many people think sex is for the bedroom or in private - however a case could be made about the effect on children if there were no restraint on public sexual intercourse. That is, allowing children to develop and experience life in accordance to their maturity.

Many of these topics are subjective but reason and commonsense should prevail wherever possible.

Peter's perception that SSM is really all about registration by some government official is probably apt, but why should SS couples not be able to have their 'marriage' government approved if they feel the need? It goes beyond that, in recognising that homosexuals are people and are part of the same community, regardless what one thinks of the reach of government involvement. That is a separate issue that involves not only SSM but any marriage.

H

Looks like I hit your buttons, for all your claims of being pro-SSM, else why the ad-hominem "to spell it out for the vitriolic, chip on both shoulders harpie that is Ammonite"?

Well at least I'm balanced...
:P

So why does "gay pride" 'prick' a nerve? If you have no problem with gays? Yeah, I understand you're not biased, BUT......

@Shockadelic,
>No, currently there's no such thing as "gay marriage".
>It's something *you* want to invent and introduce to society.
>The onus is on you to justify this.

sauropod "No. That would be like asking women to justify why they should have the vote, or slaves to justify why they should be free."

Actually, people *did* have to justify changing voting laws (lengthy debates I'm sure occurred) and abolishing slavery (that one led to a war!)

Every thing that exists was once also introduced and changed the exisiting society and was justified at the time or it wouldn't exist today.

Marriage was once *not* recognised by the state. It was private.
Legislation had to be *introduced* and therefore "justified".

As you can see from the debate here, even that is being questioned.
But people advocating the repeal of the existing law would *also* have to justify it.

> You are not free to marry children, 37 different spouses,
> your dog or your recently deceased lover.

"There are valid reasons for each of these restrictions."

Most of those "reasons" are not rational at all.
They are based on sentiments, opinions, beliefs.

Just like people's attitudes to gay marriage.

When it comes to human societies, there is no absolutely right or wrong answer.

Your obsession with "reason" is why you don't understand humans and their societies.

Reason is one little element, occasionally glimpsed, in the otherwise mad, magnificent, montrous mix that is "humankind".

Like most people I know, I don't care a fig if people of the same sex want to live in a relationship like the one that for years has been called "marriage" and have all the legal rights and responsibilities that heterosexual couples have. I just wish they'd find their own word for it so that we don't lose another perfectly good word like we did when we lost "gay".