Philips:

"I’m not sure why you have a problem comparing opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition interracial marriage."

What makes them comparable? The only thing that can be compared is the fact of marriage. How can sexuality and race be comparable?

Up until recently senior politicians form Labor for example were opposed to SSM. Previously homophobic? Y/N?

Homosexuals the same, it is only very recently that the pendulum is said to have swung towards the previously despised and irrelevant marriage. All homophobes before? Y/N?

Dear phanto,

Your apparent eagerness to engage in communication with me raises my levels of doubt regarding the extent to which the expressed offence and hurt, of which you spoke in our previous discussion, was indeed genuine.

<< What makes [opposition to same-sex marriage and opposition to interracial marriage] comparable?>>

The fact that there are individuals who are against each one for reasons that stem from mere bigotry.

<<How can sexuality and race be comparable?>>

By the fact that there are individuals who are prejudiced towards certain varieties of each of the above for reasons that stem from mere bigotry.

I trust this clears up any confusion you may have had with regards to the above matters.

--

leoj,

Good questions.

<<Up until recently senior politicians form Labor for example were opposed to SSM. Previously homophobic? Y/N?>>

That depends on the reasoning behind each individual’s opposition to it. As a guess, I'd say most of the time it would have been. The political party they belong to is irrelevant, too.

<<Homosexuals the same, it is only very recently that the pendulum is said to have swung towards the previously despised and irrelevant marriage. All homophobes before? Y/N?>>

No.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is not in and of itself homophobic. Opposition to same-sex marriage may, however, be a sign of homophobia, depending on the reasoning behind it. You don’t seem to be understanding the difference there.

Philips:

I never said I was offended or hurt. I said you were aggressive. That's a totally different thing.

"By the fact that there are individuals who are prejudiced towards certain varieties of each of the above for reasons that stem from mere bigotry."

People are prejudiced about many things why did you choose this particular comparison. Maybe it is a backhanded way of trying to suggest that SSM opponents would have been racists in the time when interracial marriage was outlawed.

When interracial marriage was the cause of the day what did they use to compare with their situation? Or maybe they just presented it on its own merits and did not need to rely on comparisons which could be misinterpreted as slights against their opponents.

Having now seen the ballot paper, with it's simplicity, I'll bet the printing ogresses in a number of universities are running hot.

Dear phanto,

My sincerest apologies for the clumsy wording. I hope you will forgive me.

<<I never said I was offended or hurt.>>

Perhaps I should instead have said, “… the apparent offence and hurt, that your reaction suggested …”? I will endeavour to be more careful in the future.

<<People are prejudiced about many things why did you choose this particular comparison.>>

Because both are forms of marriage, and both have opponents for whom bigotry is the only reason for opposition. If you have any other more appropriate analogies, then I would be pleased to hear of them.

<<Maybe it is a backhanded way of trying to suggest that SSM opponents would have been racists in the time when interracial marriage was outlawed.>>

I am afraid not. I have quite plainly stated, on several occasions now, that homophobia is as dreadful as racism, and that it is simply the 'new racism’. I did not mean to suggest anything indirectly. I apologise if I gave you that impression.

<<When interracial marriage was the cause of the day what did they use to compare with their situation?>>

I am not sure if they had an analogous situation, or if they had even endeavoured to find one.

<<Or maybe they just presented it on its own merits and did not need to rely on comparisons …>>

Perhaps. However, analogies are always a useful tool for communication. They are frequently used in law for this very reason. The use of an analogy, no matter how offensive it may be to some, is not indicative of the level of a proposal’s merit.

Indeed, both same-sex marriages and mixed marriages have precisely the same meritorious argument in favour of them: equality.