Comments on: The Battle for Marriage http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/01/14/the-battle-for-marriage/ Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:50:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Sharny Annison http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/01/14/the-battle-for-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-54 Sharny Annison Tue, 16 May 2006 00:05:14 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/05/06/the-battle-for-marriage/#comment-54 John, you live in Australia in 2006, you have every right you could ever need to live a long and happy life. You are free to be gay, free to love whomever you wish, you are free. It seems this argument is more about you trying to tell us how to think rather than an issue of rights. Unfortunately for you, we are also free, free to have our own opinions and free to stand by our convictions. Rock on Bill!! Sharny Annison, Leongatha John, you live in Australia in 2006, you have every right you could ever need to live a long and happy life. You are free to be gay, free to love whomever you wish, you are free. It seems this argument is more about you trying to tell us how to think rather than an issue of rights. Unfortunately for you, we are also free, free to have our own opinions and free to stand by our convictions. Rock on Bill!!

Sharny Annison, Leongatha

]]> By: John Kloprogge http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/01/14/the-battle-for-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-37 John Kloprogge Mon, 15 May 2006 06:15:58 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/05/06/the-battle-for-marriage/#comment-37 I am not offended by pictures of married heterosexuals, and I strongly doubt that any gay person would be. Remember, it was a heterosexual who took them down. And I cannot think of one example of individual marriage "being attacked". It's not as if a "Pink Army" is going around to people's houses and lynching them for being married. Rights without responsibilities? Many gay couples have happily taken on all the responsibilities straight people have - paying taxes, having committed relationships, raising children - but have not been given the rights. They are still discriminated against, e.g. in Medicare, in ways that often harm the children. And I don't think we should be shaming people who have divorces. Divorce is a tragic breakdown of a relationship, for whatever reason. Sometimes a partner has been abused. I think we should be fostering love in marriages, and comforting those whose marriages don't work out. I agree, however, that marriage is probably a source of stability and peace in society. Unfortunately, for gay people, they cannot have their love legally recognised. And this is where fundamentalist hypocrisy shows: on one hand they condemn the short-lived nature of many gay relationships, and on the other hand, they do their best to break them up (by denying them a chance to cement their relationship in law). You can't have it both ways. All people should be able to benefit from the stability and peace marriage brings. And, I think, as long as you deny marriage to same-sex couples, you will never achieve real peace in society. Gay people will never stop campaigning to have their love and commitment recognised through marriage. So until they are given this right, marriage will actually be a source of great conflict in society, which will be damaging to all. John Kloprogge, North Croydon I am not offended by pictures of married heterosexuals, and I strongly doubt that any gay person would be. Remember, it was a heterosexual who took them down.

And I cannot think of one example of individual marriage “being attacked”. It’s not as if a “Pink Army” is going around to people’s houses and lynching them for being married.

Rights without responsibilities? Many gay couples have happily taken on all the responsibilities straight people have – paying taxes, having committed relationships, raising children – but have not been given the rights. They are still discriminated against, e.g. in Medicare, in ways that often harm the children.

And I don’t think we should be shaming people who have divorces. Divorce is a tragic breakdown of a relationship, for whatever reason. Sometimes a partner has been abused. I think we should be fostering love in marriages, and comforting those whose marriages don’t work out.

I agree, however, that marriage is probably a source of stability and peace in society. Unfortunately, for gay people, they cannot have their love legally recognised. And this is where fundamentalist hypocrisy shows: on one hand they condemn the short-lived nature of many gay relationships, and on the other hand, they do their best to break them up (by denying them a chance to cement their relationship in law). You can’t have it both ways. All people should be able to benefit from the stability and peace marriage brings.

And, I think, as long as you deny marriage to same-sex couples, you will never achieve real peace in society. Gay people will never stop campaigning to have their love and commitment recognised through marriage. So until they are given this right, marriage will actually be a source of great conflict in society, which will be damaging to all.

John Kloprogge, North Croydon

]]>