A thing to note from the last post... I don't agree with arranged marriages (just in case anyone wants to pick up on the ambiguity left by the 350 word limit). My reference to arranged marraiges was just to point out that marriage is always about love, whenever the times and the place. Thus it highlights the other two aspects which are unique to traditional marriage - unity of the sexes and "rearing and bearing" (in the vein of "ranting and raving", "weal and heal", and all those other Anglo-Saxon couplets) - and are unique to the futhering of a society which structures itself towards the promotion of stability.

Also, it must be noted that my views are - and I am using this term outside of the pejorative sense - reactionary, in that they are not arguing for the status quo, but that that the status quo has already moved to far away from an suitable situation, and that this is, in many ways, the last nail in the coffin of traditional marriage.

Finally, I don't appreciate being called "homophobic" or accused of spouting "homophobic dross". I have at no stage argued that homosexuals should be persecuted or vilified, just that traditional marriage should be preserved. To clarify an earlier comment, I was not comparing homosexual intercourse to adultery or pedophilia... I was just establishing a principle upon which Christians are challenged to not engage in sexual activity which comes naturally. Adultery is certainly worse than homosexual sex in a loving, long-term partnership - I do not consider them equal, even though I do consider them both to be discouraged to a Christian.

I am firmly of the view that traditional marriage is not about asserting heterosexuality, but rather is about unifying the sexes and procreating, and thus tens of thousands of homosexuals can be happily married to members of the opposite sex in marriage in Australia.

I hardly think a few gay men and lesbians marrying the partner of their choice is going to lead to social instability. What, are the majority of heterosexuals going to follow their lead, ditch their opposite-sex spouses and become gay?

If you want a recipe for social misery it is encouraging gay men and women to marry opposite-sex partners. Many have in the past (less so now in Australia as things have become easier for homosexuals) and the results include lying, cheating, men going off to do the beats and illicit affairs. This has had a devastating impact on spouses and any children from those sham marriages. A woman who finds out her husband has been having gay sex on the side will be just as unhappy as one who finds out her husband has had an affair with another woman.

I also worry about this language re: "duty" and "social stability". I used to be a socialist and now could be better described as left-libertarian. History shows us the dangers of where the needs of the state and society come before the individual. I should have woken up a lot earlier!

As for tradition, some traditions deserve to be thrown out. The tradition of adults marrying children went back a long way but legislation in Australia and other democratic states has rightly abolished that tradition. Polygamy is another tradition which entrenches the inequality of women. Again, it is a tradition we fortunately don't have in Australian marriage laws. Tradition for its own sake is not very useful and in some cases downright appalling.

I'd also like to point out that societies where social stability and the rights of the state over the individual are not necessarily stable in the long run anyhow. The Soviet Union comes to mind. An extreme example, I suppose, but it clearly illustrates what happens when individual freedom and happiness take a back seat to the "rights" of those who define what society's needs are.

DavidJS, great post.

R0bert

Thank you, Robert. I must say though that this thread (so far) has been more informed than some of ill-informed garbage that surfaces whenever the issue of homosexuality is raised.

On the original topic of liberal principles, people like Richard Kings have a dilemma. Their side of politics rests on a contradiction: deregulation of markets along with the regulation of social life. This is fundamentally unstable. People don't take kindly to having their personal lives regulated for very long while rich mates of the government are free to do what they wish. And it seems that those on Howard's side of politics no longer wants to minimise the intrusion of government but to actually increase it. How the Liberal tradition has changed.

DavidJS

Have you heard the storyline of the new Heath Ledger movie, Brokeback Mountain? It looks to be very interesting and a damning critique of the social cost of gays trying to fit het life-styles. It is directed by Ang Lee - (Ice Storm, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon) - I will be checking this one out.

I agree with everything you have posted, I find Richard Kings article timely and ironic. Can't really see the Libs embracing gays (so to speak) - not with the recent veto on gay marriage. Yet a number of gays I know vote Liberal - guess its the economy.

Cheers

I'm sure many gays do vote Liberal. Given that federal Labor threw its lot in with the Coalition over the same-sex marriage issue last year, gays (especially those mortgaged up to the eyeballs) would be asking themselves if there's a real difference between the ALP and the Coalition. And John Howard appeared stronger on economic issues than Mark Latham so there wasn't a great deal of incentive to vote Labor. Sure people like Anthony Albanese have come up with practical pro-gay policies (such as around superannuation) but Albanese, Wong and Plibersek don't run the party.

The most fundamental problem is that both Coalition and Labor have moved away from policies based on individual freedom and opted for policies emphasising their ability to protect us from bad things. Or rather, protect conservative-inclined voters from bad things - terrorists, gays, [insert evil-doer here].