Cheers for the apology AJ.

And yes, I do have a nasty streak. I think we all do!

Individual says, “I interpreted marriage for a man & a woman to unite thus living together without committing a sin of the flesh in the eyes of God. The little terrors in general came as a result of God's consent for the couple to have a roll in the hay.”

Yes, I guess that is right, though there is more to marriage avoiding sin/rolling in the hay, w’o denying either, certainly pleasure in the second action.

Hi AJ Philips, I might give replying to you a miss since I think you are just in it for the verbal jousting – the thrill of the chase as it were.

Individual, I see we are back again. You raise an interesting point about equality and hierarchy. I see the distinction between status (equality) and function (hierarchy) as an important one. Status is who we are in ourselves, function is about process – getting things to work: think company structures, the organisation of the military, schools, the local sports club, the RC church, etc.

The thing that goes wrong is that those ‘higher’ up the hierarchy soon forget the idea of equality, including that of the sexes, and accord themselves a higher status. BTW, all that equality stuff including equality between men and woman first turned up in recorded history in Genesis chap 1 (apologies to AJP for bringing religion into the argument)

OK Clownfish, I’ll have another go, maybe logic isn’t my strong point.

No, I don’t dispute the form of Trav’s argument, it is part 2 of my argument.

I think the problem (=failure of logic) in your argument is that by rights an infertile couple should be able to produce children, penis in right aperture, matching pair of sex organs for producing children, that kind of thing – unfortunately some couples who marry with every expectation of children find that are not able to have children. This is a very different set of conditions to that of a same sex couple – wrong aperture, lack matching (complementary) pair of sex organs.

So, accordingly your statement, “that the same argument holds against infertile and childless heterosexual marriages” is condemned ipso facto for failure of logic. Sorry about that.

Houellebecq, IMO, makes good argument at Monday, 13 February 2012 9:34:04 AM

I suppose it is OK (just) for you all to wander from the cut and thrust of my article, if you are enjoying yourselves, though Clownfish and individual need to cool it somewhat.

Pericles,
You'll find that if you weren't muslim but your partner is then you can not get married in Malaysia. I know several Australians who had to become muslim so they could get married & stay together in Malaysia.
Because neither you nor your partner are muslim it doesn't affect you.
I did not make this up. This how several good friends explained it to me.
Don't believe it , check for yourself.

Trav,

You’re welcome. I’m just disappointed that I didn’t make it clear in the first place - I’ve never been one to shy away from an apology.

.

David Palmer,

Sorry, but that’s one of the weakest cop-outs I’ve ever encountered and I don’t think anyone is fooled by it.

<<…I might give replying to you a miss since I think you are just in it for the verbal jousting – the thrill of the chase as it were.>>

Considering how much you’ve prided your argument on being completely non-religious, and the strength of my argument demonstrating otherwise, I would’ve thought that my motivations here would be the last of your concerns.

Not that I’m saying you’re right, of course.

Ever since your initial accusation regarding the use of the term “Sky Daddy” (despite including your quotation marks - go figure), you’ve been scratching around, looking for a way to divert attention from the point I’ve raised and now that you've exhausted all avenues, you simply dismiss me based on more conjecture.

You really should ask yourself why it is that you are the only one here who needs to do such things.

I’m not sure why, as a Christian, you feel it’s so important that your argument not contain a religious element to it, but it’s an encouraging sign of the times that you do. Would it really hurt your argument that much if you were to admit that I’m right and just strike that part of your article from the record (so to speak) though?

There’s no reason why - when trying to formulate a completely non-religious case against gay marriage - your apparent sneaking of God into the argument couldn’t have just been a simple oversight, but now your side-stepping and accusations just look like a guilty conscience.

By the way, I have nothing against religious arguments regarding gay marriage per se, so there was no need for the insincere apology. I’d point out, however, that the truth claims of any given religion need to be demonstrated before such arguments have any validity - not just asserted.

That wasn't the part I was questioning, individual, as you would be aware.

>>You'll find that if you weren't muslim but your partner is then you can not get married in Malaysia<<

But I suggest you may be wrong in stating that as an absolute. Article 3 of the Malaysian Constitution states specifically that all religions may be practiced in peace and harmony, while Article 11 gives every person the right to practice their own religion.

As a result, there are two levels of marriage legality, that which is recognized under Islamic Law, and what is known as "civil law" marriage. Given the nature of that country, the former is far more powerful than the latter.

But this is the sentence that I highlighted:

>>If they are married & visit Malaysia then they are not permitted to sleep in the same hotel room<<

Which is utter nonsense.

The two-level, religious/non-religious system would be quite appropriate for Australia, in my view. Although being a genuinely secular nation, the emphasis would be reversed, with the civil law being the legal foundation of the partnership, and the religious ceremony simply being the icing on the cake for those so inclined.

In both cases the parties would be legally married, and the Church (or churches) would not have to get into such a lather about being invaded by gay activists.

The problem would remain, of course, for Christian gays who would like to be married in their church. But that is simply a matter between themselves and their priests.

How do Muslim gays deal with it, I wonder?