I think if we're honest here for a second, the debate really comes down to this: The pro-SSM people are not really interested in total equality. They're just interested in having their own world-views incorporated into the current discriminatory laws. (and I'm not saying "discriminatory" to imply a bad thing, just the fact that the laws are specific in their nature.) Of course, such an argument is not particularly compelling if you're not already a pro-SSM, so then calls for "equality", "fairness", and "tolerance", etc. are used instead. KMB and Keith are simply poking holes in this line of argument, and all the pro-SSM are getting defensive because there really is no way to rationally defend those principles and still keep the argument on the same terms.

The anti-SSM people in turn are not really interested, on the whole, in preserving tradition, religious institutions, etc (I don't see the same fervour applied to de-facto relationships, pre-marital sex, and Sunday trading for example). They really just don't like homosexual behaviour and would prefer it to just go away. It's hard to effectively argue this way in public, so we then have the "slippery slope", "tradition", and "poke holes" (see above) arguments. And then the anti-SSM get defensive when their hypocrisy is exposed.

The interesting thing here, though, is that the pro-SSM don't really have the numbers yet for their world-view, and so to get the numbers they invoke political correctness to shut down the opposition (as in the recent Miss USA California), present media images (sitcoms, movies, etc) depicting pro-gay lifestyles, and lobby government officials to enshrine SSM in spite of the view of the majority of their constituents. It's just what they do.

The anti-SSM are on the back foot. They're forced to invoke some disingenuous religious tradition and try to enshrine heterosexual marriage into law and constitutions while they still have the numbers.

Who will win? The pro-SSM will probably win because they have control of the media and can effectively silence debate better than the anti-SSM.

Roy

Dear KMB,

You seem to have missed the point again, that
I was trying to make.

With the Joshua Loth Liebman's quote - I deliberately
left out the last part because the point was, as
I stressed to you -"toleration," not condemnation.

I was not asking you "to necessarily share or
even accept other life styles -
simply make a positive and cordial effort to understand
and tolerate, not condemn."
Not difficult really, to grasp, I would have thought.

Have a nice day.

Roy said - They're just interested in having their own world-views incorporated into the current discriminatory laws.

I think that is what many say they want but what they really want is more and more recognition of their own lifestyle because they are not entirely at peace with it themselves. Why seek the acceptance of other people when you do not need it?

They may well be discriminated against in this particular case but so what? What advantage is their in having the right to something that has no intrinsic value anyway? Homosexual people should be campaigning alongside heterosexual people to remove all unnecessary government intervention in their relationships. Where there are issues relating to property or insurance and the like we should all be seeking a better solution to the problem than having to define relationships according to the sexual behaviour of the people involved.

Homosexual people should be fighting for that rather than same sex marriage. That would solve their problem and the problem for many heterosexual people as well. It seems however that many are not as interested in solving that problem as much as they are about pushing the value of their behaviour. If their behaviour is equal in all ways to heterosexual behaviour then who are they trying to convince? There is no need to convince anyone unless it is to try and get something worthwhile that you have a right to but do not possess.

Raising the issue of same sex marriage as an issue of discrimination can be a way of trying to make others feel guilty because no one wants to be seen as someone who discriminates. To try and make someone feel guilty when there is no real cause for guilt is a bullying tactic. Homosexual people who resort to this do their cause no favours.

I admire your chutzpah, KMB. You say to CJ Morgan, "So finally we have an admission that “of course it's an arbitrary line” between legalising homosexuality and legalising incest. Clarity at last", but you have conspicuously failed to answer my previous questions (forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779&page=0#139751), which apply the same facile non-logic that underpins your "slippery slope" argument. It screams loud and clear that you know there is no reasonable basis for your claim, and that you are unable to defend it against enquiry.

Roy, you wrote "Who will win? The pro-SSM will probably win because they have control of the media and can effectively silence debate better than the anti-SSM."

I'm reminded of Andy Schlafly's claim that he founded Conservapedia to combat the liberal bias of Wikipaedia. Wikipedia, of course, is edited by the public, and reflects the public's views, which are predominantly liberal - or at least more liberal than the traditional Right would like to acknowledge.

The same applies to SSM. There is no silencing of debate. There are simply so few people supporting discrimination against homosexuals that their views get less coverage than the reasonable majority's.

You are good with the red herrings, KMB.
Your piece with "The Impact of Homosexual Marraige (SSM)" cracked me up. Now we have "the indoctrination of children". This is patent nonsense. Children through their own life experiences at school and social groups will quickly realise the difference between male/female and SS couples. Being brought up in a SS environment will not make the children "gay".

How many children are there in Australia being raised by a single parent and "will never have the hope of the normal development provided exposure to a mother and father"?

"Children will be artificially produce for deliberate placement into SSM's....." - This is just so stupid it doesn't warrant a comment.

Do you know how difficult it is for a couple to adopt a child in this day and age?

There are also many Australian children who, for one reason or another, will never get to know one or the other biological parent.

After having met a lot of "families" by way of my job, I can assure you my partner and I would do a much better job at parenting and caring for a child than some of the "couples" out there. Why else do we need Child Protection Agencies?

Stick to the issue KMB

Sancho and Sparkyq are just illustrating my point perfectly in their last comments. The responses are poorly argued, have logic errors, and are on the whole emotive. KMB and co. will easily shoot down their arguments, but so what? As I implied earlier, and as phanto explored in his response, pro-SSM are really just trying to extend the covering of acceptability on to their lifestyle. No more. No less. And anti-SSM are just saying, "No, it's not acceptable."

Sancho seems to think there's no silencing of debate and the media are reflecting rather than influencing society's values. This kind of thinking indicates the kind of pro-SSM who thinks they can win their rights *fairly*, that their cause is the epitome of logic and common sense. That's just not the reality that I see. The reality is that pro-SSM will win in a somewhat underhanded, authoritarian way. Lots of indoctrination and associated punishment is in our present and future. HR policies, school curriculums, hate-speech laws, affirmative-action-type laws, gay-only relationship movies, and sitcoms, etc, will be how this *natural* lifestyle will become *naturally* accepted.

I just would like each side of the argument to accept the real situation here.

Roy