"So does Mr Gerrit, Shockadelic."

I was responding to Foxy (who repeatedly vows not to interact with me, but keeps doing so).

"Ever used smoke on bees?"

And how does that analogy hold with homophobes/bigots?
You can't "smoke" humans.
That would be a "crime against humanity".

"You didn't see a rise in black-bashing with the civil rights movement in the US either."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers%27_murders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

Firstly, that was a genuine people's movement, not a few loudmouthed activists and their ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Secondly, what's it like to be Black in America today?
Seems far worse than in ye olde days.

"You're a strange one, Shockadelic. On the one hand, you're against same-sex marriage because you fear that bigots won't have the liberty to be bigots. Then on the other hand, you're worried that the push for same-sex marriage will incite bigotry".

"you fear that bigots won't have the liberty to be bigots"

No, I fear people won't be have the liberty to be themselves, have free thought and free speech.

"you're worried that the push for same-sex marriage will incite bigotry""

I'm a realist, not a wishful thinking utopian.

I'm not against same-sex marriage, per se.
I'm against (a) the hypocritical/inconsistent "reform" that only goes half-way (ignoring other *explicit* prohibitions like incest and bigamy, that are also "love, love, love" between consenting adults) and
(b) the bully-with-a-megaphone totalitarian methods used to create/enforce "reform".

You're the strange ones.
You want "tolerance" and "diversity" but constantly bash religious people or anyone who doesn't goosestep compliantly with your agenda in any way (She's smoking and wearing fur! Get her!).

You want a modern "evolved" society, yet welcome droves of medieval/primitive people at the airport every day, as if just setting foot on Western soil will magically transform them.
And anyone opposing the flood of "Neanderthals" is a "bigot".

You're the ones who need to make up your minds.
You can't have your gay wedding cake and make it halal too.

I was referring to your post before that one, Shockadelic.

<<I was responding to Foxy…>>

Never mind. You missed it. Moving on…

<<And how does that analogy hold with homophobes/bigots?>>

Maybe the smoke is same-sex marriage or tolerance permeating through society? I don’t know. It was a stupid analogy designed to highlight the silliness of your analogy.

<<Firstly, that was a genuine people's movement...>>

So is this. You have simply written it off over a few cherry-picked occurrences like a friggin’ cake that no-one will shut up about. Seriously, who cares? Had it been a bakery that got in trouble for refusing to make a black-themed cake, no-one would say peep.

<<Secondly, what's it like to be Black in America today?>>

It seems a lot better than the days of segregation. Apparently a black guy even got voted in as president!

<<Seems far worse than in ye olde days.>>

I take your point about Martin Luther King, etc., but how you justify the above claim I’ll never understand. Apparently minorities should forever accept their position as second-rate citizens just to avoid a temporary backlash.

<<No, I fear people won't be have the liberty to be themselves…>>

Except if being themselves involves marrying someone of the same sex when it might upset those you should actually be fighting against.

<<I'm against (a) the hypocritical/inconsistent "reform" that only goes half-way (ignoring other *explicit* prohibitions like incest and bigamy, that are also "love, love, love" between consenting adults)...

Yeah, I already discredited your invalid comparisons there. Those other things are not analogous to same-sex marriage.

<<You want "tolerance" and "diversity" but constantly bash religious people or anyone who doesn't goosestep compliantly with your agenda in any way…>>

Have you got any examples you can provide us with? Discrediting the arguments of others is very different to "bashing" them.

The rest of your post to me can simply be ignored since you’re just lumping me in with a stereotype despite myself not having commented on any of those other issues.

My previous response was not an "inter-action" with
that particular poster. It was a general comment and
observation - on
his amazing claim concerning "gay bashings."

Considering his subsequent follow-up comments - I'm sure
most people will understand my wanting to give his posts
a wide berth.

AJ Philips "Maybe the smoke is same-sex marriage"

Or maybe it's giving the hive a great big whack!

"Had it been a bakery that got in trouble for refusing to make a black-themed cake, no-one would say peep."

Yeah, right.
NAACP on speed-dial, more like it.
Faux outrage blog posts galore.
Bricks through window.
Strangled cat in letterbox, etc....

So, I can get a black-face minstrel cake design, with no hassles, at the "liberal [sic]-owned and operated" bakery? Yeah, right.

"It seems a lot better than the days of segregation."

Can't recall those segregated coffee shops getting drive-by shootings by Uzi-toting, crack-smoking gang-bangers.

They just drank coffee and danced to the jukebox.
Then went home.
Because they had one.
Which they paid for.
With a job.

"Apparently minorities should forever accept their position as second-rate citizens just to avoid a temporary backlash."

Apparently they should be realistic.

"Except if being themselves involves marrying someone of the same sex"

How is state regulation "liberty" or "being yourself"?

We already have the "liberty" to love and live with anyone we want. No law required.

Don't like the existing state law? Then..
(a) repeal the whole damn thing
(b) amend the whole damn thing (incest and bigamy are also love, love, love between consenting adults), or
(c) STFU

"Those other things are not analogous to same-sex marriage."

No "analogies" required.
Incest and bigamy are "love, love, love" between "consenting adults" and are "nobody's business" except the lovers.

"you’re just lumping me in with a stereotype"

"You/Your" is plural too.
Buy a dictionary.

"You" (plural, progressive utopians) constantly contradict yourselves.
Internet forums are chock-full of "your" (plural) hypocrisy.

Foxy "My previous response was not an "inter-action" with that particular poster. It was a general comment and observation - on *his* [my emphasis] amazing claim concerning "gay bashings."

Then "*he*" can be named.

You referred to a person ("one poster," and now "that particular poster") not merely the content of the comments.

Etiquette: persons are addressed by name.
*Content* can be addressed directly without attribution.

Don't like responding to me? You just did it again!

Shockadelic,

<<Or maybe it's giving the hive a great big whack!>>

Maybe. That doesn’t seem to have been the case yet. Either way, this will always be the case to some extent until it actually happens. Even bees eventually settle down after you whack their hive though.

<<NAACP on speed-dial, more like it.>>

Er, no, I meant you people who are so worried about the liberty of others wouldn’t be so quick come to the defence of a baker who refuses to bake a black-themed cake. And so you shouldn’t be either.

<<Can't recall those segregated coffee shops getting drive-by shootings by Uzi-toting, crack-smoking gang-bangers.>>

Those things are not caused by the liberation of African Americans. They would arguably be far worse if they were still repressed.

<<Apparently they should be realistic.>>

Yes, just think where African Americans would still be if people were “realistic”.

<<How is state regulation "liberty" or "being yourself"?>>

"Liberty" can also refer to statutory rights or privileges. (http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%3Aliberty)

<<We already have the "liberty" to love and live with anyone we want. No law required.>>

That’s beside the point. Not being able to marry sends a message to homosexuals and their children that their relationships and families are not deserving of marriage, and marginalisation is never conducive to societal health. Marriage would also standardise, nationally, the benefits that the second rate civil unions provide.

<<Incest and bigamy are "love, love, love" between "consenting adults" and are "nobody's business" except the lovers.>>

And they cause harm. I’ve already addressed this.

<<"You/Your" is plural too.>>

It’s still a generalisation that you’re including me in.

<<"You" (plural, progressive utopians) constantly contradict yourselves.>>

You see?

I’ll be interested to see these contradictions though.

Susieonline,

I readily accept that the same-sex marriage debate is not silly to some people, but, so what? It is nonetheless silly because it is just about the meaning of a word, though the usual emotive baggage has been attached to the debate to provide the necessary drama. Same-sex marriage was never illegal in any of the countries you mention. Same-sex marriage is not illegal here. It was non-existent there and is non-existent here. The use of the terms “legal, “illegal”, and “legalised” is just part of the narrative of discrimination.

I don’t think Australians are going to be any different to the people of other Western countries. The same-sex marriage advocates have run a brilliant campaign, and it’s worked. I have no doubt that a plebiscite for same-sex marriage would be carried, though a referendum to reverse the High Court’s amendment to the Constitution would, if properly worded and argued for, have a chance.

I won’t lose any sleep if same-sex marriage is created. I will just wait for the next issue to be created out of nothing and all the usual suspects to jump on the bandwagon. I will also wait for a High Court amendment to the Constitution that upsets all those overjoyed with the last one.