The only time liberals ever have anything but contempt for marriage is if they can redefine it to mean a same-sex relationship.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

It seems to me, sometimes that it would be ok for me to be in a loving relationship with another male. Why not if it is genuinely based on love and servitude? For me the answer lies in that my saviour makes clear that the way he expects us to love him and each other, is to live in hetrosexual relationships not homosexual ones.

For me there is another reason that i would not enter into a relationship with another male, and that is that i am attracted to boys/children, rather than adults.

Up until this point in my comment, most of what is said about ‘equal’ rights would mean that i could enjoy a family with another male as my sex partner. However most people would not agree that i should be allowed to live in a sexual relationship with an 11 year old boy.

And rightly so. Because there are times when, despite our human desires, it needs to be our appreciation of true love (love that is learned from Jesus) that we ought to base our relationships on, and that does not include homosexual union with either adult men, or children.

‘Equal rights’ taken with the terms than many people use in their disussions would mean that i, convinced of my ability to genuinly love an 11 year old, could live in a sexual relationship with one.

However (and thankfully i have never been sexually involved with a minor because of this) true love, Jesus style, is far more profound than this, and does not allow for unions other than that of a hetrosexual nature.

Craig Larkin

Kath, the US Declaration of Independence proclaims the following: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are [b]created[/b] equal, that they are [b]endowed[/b], by their [b]Creator[/b], with certain unalienable Rights…”

If you agree with the Declaration that rights are endowed to us by the Creator, thus making them inalienable, why believe that you have a “right” to behaviour that the same Creator responsible for endowing you with your rights deems to be abominable?

If you don’t believe our rights come from God, then where do they come from? If our rights are temporal in their provenance, then they can’t be inalienable, because they can be taken away. In addition to this, their temporal provenance would make them arbitrary and subjective. In effect, rights would become arbitrary inventions simply determined by the principle that might makes right.

But should a tiny minority like homosexuals seriously be advocating for a system of human rights based on the principle that might makes right? If so, we have to question their sanity!

[i]John Kloprogge said: “However, not everyone’s experience is like yours, yet many people still live happy and healthy lives, with direction, morals and meaning.”[/i]

John, what would you say to a pedophile who says to you that he lives a happy, healthy life with direction, morals and meaning? If you suggest that his engaging in pedophilia is morally wrong (I assume you believe this to be the case), what would you say to him if he replied, “there is more than one way to live a life. I’ve got mine, and, gladly, you’ve got yours.”

See, you mention the word “morals” there. But is morality objective or is it merely subjective and relative? If the former, what is the basis of morality’s objectivity? If the latter, how can morality make sense if it is relative?

[i]Nisaba Merrieweather says: “Everyone is human. Everyone has rights.”[/i]

Nisaba, see comments to Kath above. If rights come from God, than how can anybody have a right to behaviour God declares to be abominable? If rights don’t come from God and are instead the result of the principle that might makes right, how on earth does a tiny minority like homosexuals have any rights at all?

[i]John Kloprogge said: ‘The campaign for same-sex marriage is a campaign for *equal* rights.

It is discriminatory to give some people the right to marry the person of their choice, but deny others that right.

“Special rights” have their basis in selfishness. “Equal rights” have their basis in love.’[/i]

John, should “equal rights” to marry be extended to polygamists or people who wish to marry animals? If not, then isn’t this discriminatory? Don’t “equal rights” have their basis in “love”, as you say?

Frank Gashumba, Melbourne

First, I remind you of my blogsite rules: genuine debate is encouraged, but using my site as a soapbox to push agendas is not. Especially given that you have your own website where you can pontificate all you like on your pet topic. So I will post this comment of yours, but remind you that long comments, or too frequent comments, are not in order here.

I am glad you abhor moral relativism and the postmodern morass. But I ask you, what is the basis of your morality and truth? If it is an objective, independent source outside of yourself, then you too need to submit to it, whatever it may be. But if it is simply truth and morality as you make it to be, then you are still in the PoMo muddle of “I have my story and you have yours” which you have before admitted to.

You next bring up the old canard of homophobia. One grows a little tired of this. It seems whenever one disagrees with the homosexual agenda, he is simply being homophobic. Well that is a good way to avoid real debate. Simply engage in name calling and hope you have made your case. (Moreover, I do not fear sameness – nor man – which the term more accurately means, nor do I fear or hate homosexuals.) So please spare us of this juvenile tactic.

And as I have said elsewhere in this site, real love is willing the highest good for another person. Thus the most loving thing a person can do is warn and encourage the homosexual to leave the high-risk, dangerous and dead-end lifestyle they are in. Simply tolerating or accepting such lifestyles is not a loving thing to do – quite the opposite.

In the same way, the most loving thing I can do to a drug addict is encourage him to be set free from this unhealthy addiction. It is not loving to let him continue in his perilous path. Real love does not mean simply accepting anything that happens. That is apathy and indifference, not genuine concern.

Believe it or not, John, it is exactly because some people love you that they do not want you to continue living in something that is second best.

Your thoughts on everyone wearing the same clothes, etc., is of course simply a non-sequitur.

Your logic gets even more fuzzy when you totally misrepresent (or misunderstand) my argument. Your syllogism is not at all what I am saying. The proper syllogism is this:
1. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
2. Homosexual relationships are between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
3. Therefore, homosexual relationships are not marriage.

Thus as to obligations, the obligation of marriage is one man, one woman, full stop. If you do not like those obligations, fine, you can seek to change them. But do not pretend to equate your lifestyle with marriage. It never was, and never will be, marriage. It is simply a relationship, of which there are kinds around, and which Governments are under no obligation to give special recognition to nor extend special rights to.

And the burden of proof does lie with you to show us why we need to turn the millennia-old institution of marriage upside down so that we can cater to your sexual preferences. You have yet to make your case.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Like you, I abhore postmodernist theories that claim there is no absolute truth or absolute morality. I utterly reject moral and epistemological relativism.

I *do* believe in truth and universal morality.

However, I don’t think that being gay is immoral. Rather, I think that hatred and discrimination of gay people is universally wrong. It is the *harm* caused that makes it wrong. Homophobia causes suicides, depression, assaults, murders, as well as practical and financial hardship.

To say, however, that we all must act in the same way and do the same things is ridiculous. Soon enough, we will all be forced to do the same jobs, play the same sports, wear the same clothes … Diversity is a fact of life.

And I do not want to redefine marriage out of existence. The claim is ludicrous. Firstly, marriage has changed many times in the past and still exists. Secondly, marriage can be defined as the union of two consenting adults who share a strong, committed and intimate love. And thirdly, a loving same-sex couple getting married has no effect whatsoever on their heterosexual neighbours.

You are wrong to claim that my partner and I do not fulfill the “obligations” of marriage. We have been together for 3½ years. We love and support each other. We work, we pay taxes. We obey the law. You can’t possibly claim that “being a woman” is an obligation, because obligations are something that you do, not who you are. We fulfill all the obligations of marriage, and we would like the opportunity to marry.

And your logic is circular. You argue that:

1. If marriage is the union of a man and woman, then a gay couple cannot conceivably marry.
2. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman,
Concl: A gay couple cannot conceivably marry.

But to accept the premise that “marriage is the union of a man and a woman”, you must presuppose the truth of the conclusion “a gay couple cannot conceivably marry”. This is classic begging-the-question: we have no independent reason for accepting the premises. Thus, your argument falls back to weaker justifications based on “tradition” or whatever.

And I simply don’t accept your argument that the “burden of proof” lies with me, because I supposedly want to change the “millennia-old institution of marriage”. The burden of proof didn’t lie with black people when they wanted to end centuries of slavery and oppression. Their fundamental right to equality and freedom was universal and self-justifying, even though most people didn’t realise it.

Rather, I think the burden of proof lies with heterosexuals to explain why they should have the right “to marry the consenting adult partner of one’s choice”, and gays shouldn’t. If you are going to promote inequality, you’d better have a good reason to do so. So far, I haven’t heard any.

“Tradition” is no justification for something being “right”. For, if it were, then whatever a particular society happens to have as it’s tradition must be beyond question. Morality would be based on what people in a community feel like doing. And really, this is a form of moral relativism. And I reject it utterly.

John Kloprogge, 22, North Croydon

Sorry, but the homosexual demand for marriage is a plea for special rights. You are demanding the benefits of something without fulfilling the obligations associated with it. Marriage has always been about one man and one woman coming together, with public recognition. In order to get the benefits, one submits to the rules. If you want to redefine marriage out of existence, you are welcome to try. But please stop this foolishness about your rights somehow being denied. Any time you want, you can marry the woman of your choice. If that is not of interest to you, then do not pretend that you are somehow being discriminated against.

I have made this case in a number of places on this site. You obviously disagree. But the burden of proof rests with you to show clearly why the millennia-old institution of marriage must be recast in your image. You and your associates have thus far failed to make that case, in my view, and that of most Australians.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Your response is a very good example of postmodern thinking which promotes the idea that while everyone has his or her own story, there are no big stories, or no “metanarratives” as they say. The PoMo rejection of absolute truth leads of course to epistemological relativism, and we are all left with our own individual narratives, with no way to decide between them. Indeed PoMo is squeamish even about the prospect of comparing stories.

But the problem with this sort of relativism (the “hermeneutics of suspicion” as they put it) is that in the end all stories are reduced to the same playing field. No one story is superior to another. But this is problematic.

Most people recognize that there is a big difference between the story of, say, Mother Teresa, and that of Adolf Hitler. Not only are they different but clearly one is better than another. But when we jettison universal truth and moral absolutes, we are just left with individual stories, and no way to argue that one might trump another. No way, in fact, to say that anyone or anything is right, or wrong.

But the very fact that you think it is wrong for others to not embrace your preferred lifestyle presupposes that there are some moral standards by which to make the judgment. So it is not sufficient to simply claim that you have your story, I have mine, and that is the end of the matter. In the end, you clearly think that your version of events is the right one. But to do so undermines the relativism which you seem to embrace.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

The campaign for same-sex marriage is a campaign for *equal* rights.

It is discriminatory to give some people the right to marry the person of their choice, but deny others that right.

“Special rights” have their basis in selfishness. “Equal rights” have their basis in love.

John Kloprogge, 22, North Croydon

(Please state your city next time as per the blog rules, or else you will not be posted.)

Yes the sentence of mine that you quote does say something. It says either that around 95 per cent of the population is to the far left, or that the media (or at least SBS) is quite unrepresentative of the Australian community.

Clearly the latter, not the former, is the case. Numerous studies have demonstrated how out of touch our media elite are with the rest of society. They simply do not represent mainstream opinion.

I am not denying that there is a divergence of opinion on this and other social issues in the community. What I am saying is that the bulk of Australians to not share the radical agendas of most of our media elites.

As to your remark that everyone has rights – quite right. But what we are talking about here is the desirability, or otherwise, of governments conferring special rights on various minority groups. There are no compelling reasons for governments to formally recognize any and every sort of relationship and lifestyle choice, as I argue elsewhere.

Finally, you commit the very fallacy I warn against. You compare functional same-sex household with dysfunctional heterosexual households. As I said in the article, and say again, this is apples and oranges. It is not a fair comparison and is therefore really meaningless as to the present discussion.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

And I quote:

“…Indeed, I recall being on a very similar debate some years ago (in fact, with the same SBS program – Insight), and I was amazed that I and only two others out of a debating audience of about 40 were on the conservative, pro-family side…”

Perhaps that tells you something.

Everyone is human. Everyone, not just right-wing middle-aged heterosexuals with two adult children and three grandchildren, two small cars and a house in a leafy suburb. Or whatever you happen to be. Everyone is human. Everyone has rights. And there are a huge number of dysfunctional, even abusive or abused heterosexuals, as well as a huge number of balanced, sane gays. If I had to be a child again, I know which of those tao groups I’d like as parents.

Nisaba Merrieweather