OTB and others trot out an old has-been politician in Latham as their spokesperson against gay marriage? Lol! Who cares what that strange, aggressive guy says in any case?

ZhanPintu and his good mate Runner are excited by their childish questions that have been answered so many times that it is beyond boring:

'Why should adults who want to have sex with 9 year-old females after being married be be denied their rights? To oppose this would equally be bigotry?'

No, not bigotry, it would be illegal. Homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults is legal.

"so true ZhanPintu and why should adults who want to have sex with animals be denied their writes? Just ask one of the Christophobes High Priests(Singer)."

Do you mean 'rights' Runner? No, that wouldn't be bigotry, that would be illegal also.

One doesn't need to be a 'christophobe' to support gay marriage Runner.
There are plenty of Christians who support equal human rights.

Hi David,
I accept that some of the comments are genuine but must say I am more comfortable with your take on things. Thanks for your article.

Let’s see how many Slippery Slope and Appeal to Nature fallacies we can rack up in one Comments thread. We could possibly work in the reductio ad absurdum fallacy if one of you could be so kind as to make the, “I want to marry my [insert pet or inanimate object here]”, comment at some point.

Suseonline is right. Same-sex marriage is inevitable. We live in a country that is progressing and issues surrounding equality are generally improving, not stagnating or regressing. Every poll I see shows a majority support for same-sex marriage and even if they didn’t, the trend towards the acceptance of same-sex marriage is undeniable and shows no signs of slowing.

The arguments against same-sex marriage are pretty much the same as the arguments against interracial marriage a few decades ago…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

Have fun on the wrong side of history, folks.

P.S. I'm liking this marriage privatisation angle some are approaching the issue from. Just as some men have chosen an anti-abortion stance as a means of controlling women (now that doing it more overtly is just too socially unacceptable), same-sex marriage is being rejected through a similarly roundabout way using a push for the privatisation of marriage.

It’s an encouraging sign. Twenty years ago I never would have dreamed that opposition to same-sex marriage could be considered that socially unacceptable one day.

[Warning: much of the following was censored on another Australian site]
This aggressive Western Empire's campaign for gay marriage is obviously meant to further divide and weaken society in order to 1) keep strengthening a minority transgressive and ultra-loyal political elite bound by purely personal allegiance based on sexual habits, and 2) to cow and distract the majority of constituents ie. those either not given to such habits or not identifying them as definitive to their identity, thereby rendering such a more cooperative and cohesive majority increasingly disenfranchised, disempowered and ignored by destructive policies driven largely by the massive bailed-out merchant banks and their political servants.

What's perhaps most shocking in a longer-view historical sense is that the regime's fostering of an exclusive anti-traditional gay political "elite" is hardly unprecedented. The Nazi case demonstrated how such a close-knit and opportunistic circle of many such personally limited or traditionally transgressive people succeeded in shattering moral limits and values in an aggressive and hysterical assault against not only religion but against all efforts at justice and social progress.

An elephant in the room of this strident campaign against marriage is Lothar Machtan's thorough expose of Adolf Hitler's background as a promiscuous gay who had not even once been able to form a sexual relationship with a woman. Another parallel aspect of that Nazi-gay nexus is its political elite so crucial during Hitler's rise, in which an almost exclusively homosexual leadership elite in the Nazi's SA controlled around 3 million thugs used to terrorize political opponents and those they deemed racio-religious enemies in a strategy run for over a decade.

It's offensive that the gay marriage campaign compares itself to anti-racism, and relies on terms like "equality" and "socially progressive": this is a regressive, anti-social and divisive campaign consistent with the western regime's criminal, destructive and destabilizing conduct against the rest of the world, especially to those countries where religion and morality are still strong and command wide respect.

Mil.observer, welcome to OLO.
I fail to see why your post was censored on another site?
Boiling it all down, you don't like the idea of legal gay marriage.

What I don't understand is you seem to be comparing the campaign for gay marriage to that of Hitler and the Nazi's? That is a bit much surely?
There hasn't been mass gassings and shootings of those against gay marriage has there?

Just one point though, no where has it ever been proved that the non-religious or non-Christian people are any less 'moral' in the way they conduct their lives, than Christians.
In fact, I would suggest the contrary in many instances....

suse – thanks for the welcome. But I suggest you read: Machtan, Lothar, The Hidden Hitler, 2001.

Machtan's forensic study of Adolf Hitler's homosexuality, and of the incidentally high incidence of homosexuality among Hitler's founding and formative Nazi colleagues and mentors, is a vitally important insight into those transgressive, anti-traditional, and gender-exclusive political opportunists who overwhelmingly glorified homoerotic bonding, scoffed at traditional family and religious values, and deemed themselves above and beyond moralistic and behavioural scrutiny.

Given a similarly fanatical, arrogant and absolutist attitude among backers of S-S marriage, it came as no surprise that censorship immediately countered my posts which identified certain parallels between the political ambition and intolerance of 1920s Nazi gays and the political ambition and intolerance of gay marriage campaigners now, whether the latter be ambitious gays or their non-gay fellow travellers.

Threats and censorship against David van Gend, and censorship of my own comments on the predominance of Gays in the Nazis' rise, all rather confirmed the timeliness of such warnings from history.

suse - suggest all you like. But yes, genuine Catholics/Christians did come to form a bulwark of morality in the resistance to that scourge of fascist deviancy we call "Nazism"; many traditionally religious Jews identified the absurdly immoral personal behaviour of their tormentors too, though often much earlier than their Christian/Catholic counterparts did given the matter's obvious and direct urgency for them when continually vilified and attacked from early in that period.