I listened to a thought provoking discussion on the many dimensions and ramifications of marriage equality this afternoon, the contributors come up with some very interesting ideas and theories on why this has become such an issue and discuss topics which have not appeared from either the staunch pro or con camps as yet:

http://vanguardradio.net/podcast/2013/4/1/bourgeois-tyranny

Kipp,
Anal sex is not common among heterosexual couples and women don't like being buggered, ask around your female acquaintances and see how many would willingly submit to sodomy.

The logic of the author in exposing the illogicality of Kevin Rudd and other same-sex marriage proponents is commendable.

The homosexual lobby's argument that a same-sex relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship is devoid of logic.

"The homosexual lobby's argument that a same-sex relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship is devoid of logic." No, the objection is not to claim that same and opposite sex pairings are equally valid. It is to the claim that they are identical. They aren't and (I think that) many Australians who are completely happy for the law to guarantee that people in same sex relationships have all the legal rights and are accorded all the social respect of people in heterosexual relationships baulk only at the claim that same sex relationships are not only as valid as opposite sex ones but are, in every respect, identical to them. They are not identical, and the proposal to call them "marriages" not only turns a blind eye to this fact but forcibly deprives the people of the language needed to reflect a difference which they clearly see and whose importance seems obvious to them.

Why don't those quite properly wanting their same sex relationships to be equally valued offer to use a word other than the well ingrained and widely understood "marriage" to indicate them? If they did, it's likely all remaining non religious opposition to legalising same sex relationships would disappear instantly. And doesn't resolving impasses usually require both sides to give a little?

And if, as I'm sure they would argue, time will show that people get used to letting "marriage" stand for all person pairings, why not go with start with another word and let the meaning of "marriage" be changed over time by people usage in the way that English normally (and naturally) evolves.

I know it's a stretch but what if those who argue that the genders of people are so irrelevant that its silly to have different words for different sexually defined relationships also argued that, as all children are equally loved by their parents irrespective of their sex, we should simply call them all boys?

Can anyone tell me, exactly, what would the legal right for gay marriage DO to anyone else?
If it was un-natural for anyone to have anal sex, then the penis would not be able to fit into a rectum.

And yes, heterosexual anal sex is actually more common than you think, especially in very Christian countries like Ireland and Italy, and in strict Muslim countries.
If they aren't meant to use contraception and the old boy wants to have sex without producing another mouth to feed, how do you think he does it?

Just because you live in ignorant bliss about what is going on in other people's bedrooms, or wherever, doesn't mean it isn't happening!

>>as all children are equally loved by their parents irrespective of their sex, we should simply call them all boys?<<

It's not such a strange idea: we used to call all children 'girls'. Check out this video - you only need to watch the first 4 minutes but the rest is quite enjoyable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f7urmRaRxY

Cheers,

Tony