AJ Phillips,

You should be able to distinguish between access to a thing and what a thing is.

I did not claim that “mental health issues within the gay community only began with the marriage equality campaign”. I said that “opponents were intimidated … by being blamed for mental health issues actually created by the campaign’s invention of the idea that the thousand-year-old meaning of a word made gays feel second-class, even though it had not done so for the first 980 of those years”. Mental health issues existed before the same-sex marriage campaign came along. What the same-sex marriage campaign did was create a new reason for their existence. People who had never felt discriminated against because marriage meant the union of a man and a woman were suddenly told that the meaning of this word was an infringement of their human rights and made them second-class citizens. It would be like people going through the process of adoption suddenly feeling discriminated against because Australians for Pregnancy Equality suddenly said the adoptive process had to be called pregnancy.

You see no need or a word that mean the union of a man and a woman, whereas I do. It is obvious to me, but, obviously, not to you.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,

The High Court has already amended the Constitution, in 2013, to say that “marriage” no longer means what it meant when it was put in the Constitution in 1901. If it can do that to “marriage”, it can do that to any federal power. It could decide that from now on “lighthouses” means “torches”. It could end the federal system.

At the time of federation, if the federal parliament had legislated for “same-sex marriage”, the High Court would have ruled the legislation invalid as the “marriage” power was a power over marriage (i.e., the union of a man and a woman) not over other unions. The federal parliament does not have the power to define any word in the Constitution any way it likes. All the words in the Constitution have a meaning. But the High Court can change the meaning, and the only way to change it back is via a constitutional referendum. If the general reporting is correct and we are to have a so-called plebiscite rather than a constitutional referendum, we will know it is for show only.

The amendment to the Marriage Act in 2006 is presented as John Howard’s, but the ALP voted for it too. As you say, that amendment did not change the meaning of “marriage”. It just put the common law meaning in writing to forestall a judge changing it.

AJ Philips "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."

Er, yes I would.

Because unlike "you" (plural) I believe in liberty.
People "shouldn't" have to bake any cake they don't want to.
Go to another shop.

"Liberty" can also refer to statutory rights or privileges"

You do love define: don't you?
*I* am obviously not using it that way.
I would use the word "rights" in that context.

I am sceptical about "rights" (statutory codes) which is why I'm sceptical about marriage reform.
I have no scepticism about "liberty" (the state of being free within society).

"Not being able to marry sends a message to homosexuals"

Only if your self-esteem depends of official statutes.
Most queer people aren't that pathetic.

And prohibting incestous marriage, sends a message that your sister doesn't "deserve" your love.

And prohibiting bigamy "sends a message" to bisexuals that only one person (hence only one *sex*) "deserves" their love, hence something "wrong" with bisexuality.
Bad, bad message!

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

So clarify.
Do you oppose the immigration of people from medieval/primitive cultures that are far more homophobic/sexist than us and will thus hinder our social "evolution"?

If you support this immigration, how do you reconcile the contradiction?

"I'll be interested to see" your answer, not further evasive misdirection.

Chris C,

I don’t think anyone has claimed that a definition alone made them second-class citizens.

<<People who had never felt discriminated against because marriage meant the union of a man and a woman were suddenly told that the meaning of this word was an infringement of their human rights and made them second-class citizens.>>

I’d say it has more to do with the reaction they get from the more bigoted types when they lobby for change. And besides, social attitudes from some quarters probably would have already made them feel as second-class as they were going to feel. I don’t think this issue has introduced anything new. They’ve always been aware that they’re not able to marry.

<<It would be like people going through the process of adoption suddenly feeling discriminated against because Australians for Pregnancy Equality suddenly said the adoptive process had to be called pregnancy.>>

That’s an absurd analogy. Firstly, adoptive parents have not been rejected and discriminated against for centuries, and nor would the resistance they met in trying to redefine “pregnancy” be motivated by bigoted attitudes. Secondly, pregnancy is a biological reality; marriage, on other hand, is a social construct and a fluid concept.

<<You see no need or a word that mean the union of a man and a woman, whereas I do. It is obvious to me, but, obviously, not to you.>>

Then by all means, share. I would be fascinated as to know how not having a word to describe specifically “heterosexual marriage”, or how having to say “straight marriage” on the rare occasion that you actually need to distinguish between the two is going to adversely affect your life.

I know you would, Shockadelic.

<<Er, yes I would.>>

That’s why I said “wouldn’t be so quick”. There certainly wouldn’t be the uproar there was in support of the bakery owners if it were a race issue.

<<And prohibting incestous marriage, sends a message that your sister doesn't "deserve" your love.>>

No, it sends the message that society views incestuous relationships as potentially harmful. Again, I’ve already addressed your comparisons involving bisexuals, bigamy, polygamy, and incest - which was my main point of contention. If you’re just going to continue to re-assert your claims as if nothing was said, then there’s no point in me continuing here.

But to answer your question...

<<Do you oppose the immigration of people from medieval/primitive cultures that are far more homophobic/sexist than us and will thus hinder our social "evolution"?>>

That depends on the individuals. If you don't understand the problem with making such sweeping generalisations, then that would explain a lot of your posts.

You are making "sweeping generalisations" by claiming incest and bigamy are automatically "harmful".
And I recall your use of affection for the words "never" and "always".
And your "sweeping generalisations" about the history of Blacks in America.

Yet again you expose your own hypocrisy.
Everything you say is based on "sweeping generalisations".

"Rights" enshrined in state law are "sweeping generalisations", applied wholesale to the entire population.
The exercise of those "rights" often violating the "liberty" of INDIVIDUALS (as we see with the cake lawsuits).

Now, how exactly are we to assess the individual immigrant's "evolved/enlightened" attitudes to issues/values?
They could easily lie in a questionnaire.

And what policy are you proposing to deal with the unacceptable applicants?