It is very easy to see this ethicist gets his morals from slime. No wonder his worldview has led to so many suicides and the breakdown of civil society. His pathetic finger waving at His Maker is atrocious.

Yuyutsu …

I can't help (as much as I try to resist), putting you into the same basket of fools that post on OLO, all too frequently. (Myself excluded of course).

If you believe homosexuals are not at the root ( no pun intended) cause of gay marriage, then you bewilder me!

So, Q: do you believe this author is not pro-gay marriage, (And thus not a Marxist)?

This country (once Australia), is under constant and severe attack from the ideology of Marxism.

The alienation of Australians, (whoever one of those is now), is well advanced. Using the tool of reification, where the subjective is torn from the objective, alienating a myopic society, and leaving it fighting against itself in the death-throws of a traditional past, Marxism is stampeding through our midst on an apocalyptic mission of social destruction.

The training ground for the Marxist drones, are universities. These should be urgently defunded.
(Further, Latin should be the preserve of the Catholic Church alone, who will protect those poor and disaffected fools, with lives afflicted by such useless learning; forced to sing Latin dirges as penance, by Papal decree, for the remainder of their sad lives).

But hope springs eternal. Donald Trump has risen from the ashes of a divided America, to gather his troops for a final battle against Marxist ideologues; total destruction of NK seems imminent, China next!?

AJ Phillips,

"It may not be widely known, but arranged and forced marriages are part of life in Australia."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/tvepisode/arranged-marriage . There is a video attachment of the program with that.

"The Federal Government is considering laws to prevent forced marriages, after a number of cases of young Australian women being pressured to wed or forced to marry abroad.

But, of course, marriages arranged by parents and family aren't always forced. Some cultural groups in Australia – among them Indian and Lebanese – are choosing to keep the tradition alive, and their children are happily allowing their spouses to be chosen for them. Some people, however, are agreeing to the marriages because of family pressure."

So realistically other elements of society, cannot be fairly compared. For example with blood donation, a person may sue the Red Cross for example, if they were to obtain a blood related disease. If a person was injured in sport (in terms of woman playing versus a man), taking legal action as a result.

With relationships though, these are very personal matters. I cannot really state, which relationships are acceptable and which are not, based on my own personal values or attitudes and force these principles onto others. After all some people are still opposed to same sex relationships. Finally, I could start forcing a range of personal principles and values onto others, and I can't see people accepting that. After all, I generally don't want people placing principles onto myself either.

So AJ, marriage equality isn't for all, just for some? Whatever happened to the mantra that it's all about love? That everyone should be able to marry the one they love? That everyone should have equal rights and not be treated as a second class citizen?
Personally, if gay people get to change the definition of marriage then certainly I will support all consenting adults having the right to marry who they want because the institution of marriage would have lost its original concept and will be meaningless. Civil contracts are just as legally binding.

NathanJ,

I’m not entirely sure what the relevance was of the first few paragraphs there, but I’m happy to respond to this…

<<With relationships though, these are very personal matters. I cannot really state, which relationships are acceptable and which are not, based on my own personal values or attitudes and force these principles onto others. After all some people are still opposed to same sex relationships.>>

This is why an objective view should be taken. A way of doing that would be to weigh the risks and benefits of allowing for same-sex marriage.

--

Big Nana,

As I have noted on numerous occasions, it depends on what the risks and benefits are of each form of marriage.

<<… marriage equality isn't for all, just for some?>>

If, as you suggested in a previous discussion of ours, you believe that there is no inherent harm to polygamous and some forms of incestuous relationships, then I am willing to take your word on that. However, I would ask why you would not allow them to marry, if this is the case.

<<Whatever happened to the mantra that it's all about love? That everyone should be able to marry the one they love?>>

I have never said that.

<<That everyone should have equal rights and not be treated as a second class citizen?>>

Now that I HAVE said. Again, within reason, though. I mean, we couldn’t exactly release all incarcerated persons in the name of equality now, could we? That would have demonstrably disastrous results.

<<Civil contracts are just as legally binding.>>

But they’re still not the same. For starters, they differ from state to state. It's a bit of a dry and offensive alternative to be tossing to gay people, too, I would think.

Dear Dan,

Yes, the author is a dangerous Marxist, but as far as I know he is not homosexual.

I see no problem with homosexuality as such (more precisely, it is not more of a problem than other forms of sexuality) - only with its cynical exploitation for the Marxist/anti-religious agenda.

«If you believe homosexuals are not at the root ( no pun intended) cause of gay marriage, then you bewilder me!»

But this is true: just as most Marxists are not homosexual, so most homosexuals are neither gay nor Marxists.