Stezza
Great analysis. There's nothing left to say, really!

Nobody has picked it up but I am sure that with the name " Brendan O'Reilly ", the author has let his Catholic upbringing colour his attitude toward gay marriage.

My apologies if I am wrong.

David

.

Dear Brendan (O’Reilly, the author),

.

I think your article could form the basis of a realistic discussion in order to arrive at a common analysis and agree on a satisfactory solution for everyone.

Perhaps you would accept to remove the power plug from the emotions socket for us to proceed.

Right from the outset, you write:

"The apparent obsession with "equal rights", however, seems to have overtaken both common sense and people's perception of reality".

For many, "equal rights" is "common sense" and "people's perception of reality" is that it is neither fair nor acceptable.

"Decades ago, the gay community quite vocally branded traditional matrimony as some kind of antiquated institution, which they generally wanted no part of".

That is a common human reaction to the unachievable, called "sour grapes" - term coined by La Fontaine in the 17th century. The attitude changes when the "grapes" come within reach.

"... "the institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained" (Marlene Dixon)".

True - the two world wars were the principal liberators of women who were obliged to replace men in the workplace.

"The social status of married couples over the centuries stemmed from the fact that marriage provided the main umbrella for procreation ... "

It is a common feature in the animal kingdom for males to compete for the right of access to females for mating purposes.

The instauration of marriage civilised this process.

According to historians, monogamy and marriage evolved about 20,000 years ago, well before the advent of the current major religions. It predates recorded history.

I could continue in this vein but I think you get the message.

You make no mention of the deplorable track record of heterosexual marriage and family life, wife and child beating ("until death do us part"), incest, divorce ... compared to same-sex relationships - have you not seen those statistics?

Perhaps an acceptable solution for conservatives would be "marriage" for church-goers and "wedding" for others.

.

We gay people want to have exactly the same rights and opportunities as a heterosexual person, and that includes having the right to marry a partner of the same sex. You can throw up as many statistics to argue against gay marriage, but I can also throw up statistics proving the benefits of gay marriage for gay people. That's right, gay marriage is about gay people's right to marry the person they love. Arguing against gay marriage is the same as a gay person arguing against heterosexuals marrying. Queensland had civil unions until the LNP state government banned them. So its interesting hearing and seeing all these people backing civil unions, however these same people never spoke out against QLD banning civil unions. So the people that support civil unions are either lying or using civil unions as a diversional tactic, otherwise they would have banded together to stop the LNP in QLD banning civil unions. Anyway the banning of the QLD civil unions has put more pressure on the federal government to legalize gay marriage. I'm still wondering how my gay marriage will affect your heterosexual marriage?

.

Same sex marriage: some facts and figures

.

The Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage in 2001. Homosexual couples still marry far less often than heterosexual couples.

Just 20 percent of Dutch homosexual couples are married, compared with 80 percent of heterosexual couples, figures by Statistics Netherlands show.

Same-sex marriages represent 2% of all marriages but only 1% of all divorces.

Between 1 April 2001 and 1 January 2011, there were a total of 14,813 same-sex marriages in the Netherlands. The number of marriages between two women (7,522) was slightly higher than those between two men (7,291). In the same period, there were 761,010 marriages.

During that period, there were 1,078 same-sex divorces in the Netherlands, two-thirds of them between women (734), and 323,549 divorces in general.

"The figures show that over the past ten years gay and lesbian couples have been behaving the same way as straight couples", demographer Jan Latten of Statistics Netherlands says.

"Many of them marry out of love, of course. But, just as with straight couples, the desire to have children and the resulting legal responsibilities often weigh even more for gay and lesbian couples.

This could explain why gay couples marry less often than straight ones. Gay couples, especially gay men, still face considerable difficulties when they want to adopt children."

Source: Radio Netherlands World, 22/05/2012

http://www.expatica.com/nl/life-in-netherlands/lifestyle/Same-sex-marriage-some-facts-and-figures_12249.html

.

BP,

>You make no mention of the deplorable track record of heterosexual marriage and family life, wife and child beating ("until death do us part"), incest, divorce ... compared to same-sex relationships - have you not seen those statistics?<

Now, that's just a cheap shot, BP, and you know it. Would you care to provide the relevant statistics, for both sides, and proportionate to the relevant bases of course?

So, you don't think any gays may be capable of pedophilia, or of 'spouse-beating'? And of course there won't be much available regarding 'divorce rates', as yet.
But you may live in hope. A brave new world of marvelously stable, peaceful, loving, long-term gay 'marriages', with nary a nasty word, let alone a divorce on the horizon?
Time will tell, but the statistics for gay relationships are not at all promising - as yet. Of course 'marriage' will improve all that, won't it? Maybe, a very unlikely maybe, in my assessment, but only history will tell.

I honestly don't see what additional benefits gays have actually to gain by so-called 'marriage equality', so it really comes down to attaining the 'respectability' of a 'label'.
So, as it appears that 'civil union' is insufficient to satisfy this 'need', nothing less than taking down the fine notional concept of marriage will suffice? Bravo.

In the wild, I have not heard of any case of two animals of the same sex forming a 'marital' relationship (though a fair amount of same-sex 'play' and experimentation is evident).
But trust our species to go one better.
Having created God, we now advance to creating, or inventing, gay-marriage.
Another amazing 'advancement' in our evolution towards total escape from reality.