Keith

Please explain, with evidence, how homosexuals marrying, disturbs the peace of christian heterosexual married couples.

woulfe,
Right on!

woulfe
"Incestuous people want equal rights to non-incestuous people and they may well deserve them but they have to put forward a compelling argument for those rights."

I don't think CJ's response to the linking of incest with homosexuality was difficult to understand, but it was short, and possibly easily overlooked: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139909

To expand on it a little ...

1. incest is an illegal act, homosexual sex is not
2. rights devolve to (or are denied to) human beings, not to acts
3. people are not born with a sexual preference for their first-degree relatives (at least, I'm not aware of any research that has revealed such a sexual preference, or any individuals who claim one)
4. Australians who are born with a preference for sexual partners of their own sex constitute a class which is currently denied the right to marry their partner of choice
5. following from 3, there is not a class of incestuously oriented people to grant (or deny) rights to, in the same way there are classes of left-handed people, indigenous people, and homosexuals.

The most common instances of incest are truly horrific crimes, where a parent or close relative exploits a power differential to sexually abuse a younger and/or weaker family member. Homosexuals are naturally and justifiably offended when others attempt to derail discussions by associating us with these crimes.

Maybe we can now go back to discussing civil unions vs. same-sex marriage.

Woulfe – you cannot claim equal rights to everything just because you are a human being. I cannot just turn up at an exclusive golf club and demand the right to play just because I am a person. The right to play there belongs only to members. I can’t just take a front row seat at the opera simply because I am a human being - it is a right that belongs only to those who have paid for it. These restrictions to my rights are reasonable.

Each case must be judged on its merits and rights are granted or denied according to reason and logic. Homosexual people want certain rights that they do not have. It is not unreasonable to ask them to show why they should be granted and if they have good reasons then it should not be too hard to explain them. Heterosexual people already have those rights – how they came to get them or whether or not they deserve them is irrelevant. The fact is that homosexual people have to have a good argument as to why they are entitled to these same rights.

It has nothing to do with the intrinsic rights of anyone. It is not saying anything about their worth as a human being. It is a simple question. Why do you think that you are entitled to the same rights that are granted to heterosexual married couples?

To say that all men are created equal does not mean that all men are entitled to whatever they want.

sancho,

I don't know *why* the media is biased, but that doesn't change the fact that it *is*. There are many things in life one can observe without understanding the underlying explanation.

Anyway...

phanto makes some interesting points in relation to the pro-SSM group making a solid philosophical case for SSM. But I go back to my original post. The pro-SSM just want what they want. They're not really interested in the full ramifications of the principles they espouse. Anti-SSM are the same. Even if a solid case could be put forward for SSM, most anti-SSM would still refuse to conceed the issue.

Unfortunately, such entrenched ideological conflicts are usually "solved" by violence in one form or another. War is unlikely in this case of course ;) But tough laws that force desired behaviour are common. These laws used to be on the side of the heterosexual, but that tide is steadily turning.

woulfe, I enjoy your responses. They appear reasonable and thoughtful. I do think that KMB's incest argument is not very fair, but it brings out a broader point: the anti-SSM, in their heart of hearts, are just as against homosexual behaviour as they are against ssm. So while you say that homosexuality is not illegal, I would venture to say that anti-SSM would think that it should be. So the legality/illegality angle is probably not a good starting point for your argument, because on that basis, you should not have been granted the rights you already have (as at one time homosexuality *was* illegal in Australia).

Roy