and continuing

"Dramatising the pain ...It also trivialises the plight of many around the world who live under severe hardship and have real issues to confront."

Saying that the pain of not being able to be married is like the pain of slavery is a straw man.

That said, if homosexual love is not as valued as heterosexual love, then why is it being fought so hard against? Why this desperate combination of non-sequiturs and insults required to prosecute the issue form the 'anti-' side.

And yes it does mean that a group of people are second-class citizens if they are treated less favourably than others, for no good reason.

The 'there are more important things to think about' is, of course, a fallacy, and an absurd one. As a community we are able to think of more than thing at a time, and for pretty much any issue one cares to name, one could probably think of something more urgent or pressing.

And, again, if it's so trivial and unimportant, why so much effort to stop SSM?

you know, either marriage is special, or it's not. If it's special, then one can't argue that it is no harm not to have access to it. If it's not special, then why fight against extending it to every couple that loves each other. One can't argue both ways.

The evils Michael ascribes to SSM supporters are at least as applicable to its opponents, including him. “… disgraceful barrage of emotional manipulation” and “making your situation sound worse than it really is “ is a much more apt description of, for example, David van Gend’s histrionic reaction to the Irish referendum …

“Ireland abandons its children … Ireland has written a social suicide note and we grieve for her. But we will not follow her. More than half the Irish have voted for homosexual marriage, seduced by celebrities to violate something they once held sacred: the life between mother, father and child.”

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17371

… than, for example, Luke Beck’s clinical demolition of Frank Brennan concerns about SSM on today’s olo:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17606

Michael says, “the same-sex lobby would have us believe that it is a fundamental human right to be able to have a certificate from the government saying they are married”. But this misrepresents the position. If is not the paper that matters in itself, but the social status and recognition that paper represents, and how government decides who qualifies for one and who doesn’t.

The argument that marriage rights don’t matter because many couples don’t marry is likewise absurd. If the millions of people happily in relationships without being married constitute an argument against gay marriage, they equally constitute an argument against straight marriage. Let’s just abolish marriage entirely. But that just illustrates the argument’s absurdity. When universal franchise was introduced some women chose not to vote, but that doesn’t mean that voting should have been restricted only to men.

Equally fatuous is the argument that “many around the world … live under severe hardship and have real issues to confront.” That’s undoubtedly true, but every problem or injustice we try to solve is probably eclipsed by some atrocity or tragedy elsewhere. That’s no reason to dismiss them.

Michael should open his eyes to what’s happening around him. SSM may be of “little import” to him, but to a majority of Australians, straight and gay, its illegality is an injustice that should have been rectified long ago

Dear Cobber,

<<what logical reason do we stop same sex couples the right to marry?>>

Nobody stops same sex couples from marrying - they can marry whenever and wherever they like.

What needs to be stopped is that "rights" culture, thus I would not stand for its further expansion as proposed - I stand for its abolition.

Our individual freedom is natural and/or God-given (whichever you choose to believe) - but in any case, not man-given. Now there comes a group of people, calling themselves "the state", "united-nations", "the Sicilian syndicate" or whatever, first they rob away our freedoms, then they hand back the small change as "rights" and tell us that we should be thankful to them. No! We demand our freedom back so then we need not ask for their favours as "rights".

---

Dear WeAreStartDust,

<<if homosexual love is not as valued as heterosexual love, then why is it being fought so hard against?>>

Homosexual love is currently valued MORE than heterosexual love, so it is strange indeed why some people who claim to represent homosexuals want it to be valued less.

Do you know why homosexual love is currently valued more?

- Because the government doesn't give it its blessings!

Hi Yuyutsu

I respect the consistency and merits of your argument that government should have no role in deciding who is married and who is not, be they gay or straight. But the reality is that we live in a society where Government decides which relationships can be officially recognised as marriage and which cannot, and that official recognition has material consequences for the people concerned. For as long as this is the case, would you agree that gay relationships should be treated the same as straight ones?

Dear Rhian,

First, I have nothing against homosexuals and though equality is not my cup of tea, I am all in favour that homosexuals be treated respectfully and well.

Second, I ALREADY treat homosexual relationships the same as heterosexual ones.

(if anything, then it is you who may be sub-consciously biased because you accept the label of heterosexual relationships as "straight", which could suggest that homosexual relationships are what? "crooked" perhaps?)

Third, I do not support the "gay" movement - it harms homosexual people because it over-emphasises their sexuality and turns it into an identity and something to be proud of, rather than yet another natural trait among many, like the shape of their nose. That is why I do not support "gay relationships" as opposed to "homosexual relationships" which I do support.

Fourth, I am not aware of any remaining material consequences of official (i.e. by the state) recognition in Australia. I think they were all repealed already, otherwise they should.

Fifth, as I already commented to "WeAreStarDust" (sorry for misspelling his/her name), I wouldn't do this dis-favour to homosexuals of making their relationships be treated the same as heterosexuals' under the pressure of the gay movement: I rather keep them treated BETTER for the time-being, until such time when heterosexuals also no longer suffer from the contempt arising from government-approval.

In conclusion, I do not support the proposed legislative changes, but I do hope that this pressure will instead be used to repeal the Marriage Act (and all other legislative references to the word "marriage" and its derivatives), which would benefit everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.

For those asking for a referendum/plebiscite on the matter, it will only be fair to include this third option.

Errant behaviour: homosexuality.
Protest movement: gay rights lobby.
Auspice: social discrimination.
Specifics: gay marriage
Intent: legitimise homosexuality.