Sherry Sufi argues that the passing of the Same Sex Relationships Act and the lack of institutional discrimination against same-sex couples demonstrates that the battle for the equality of treatment for gays and lesbians has already been won in Australia, and the government redefining marriage is "a perfidious and futile attack on language"
Rigorous debate over the status of same-sex relationships has come to pervade Australia's national consciousness in recent years. The far-left demands that gay and lesbian couples be included within the existing definition of marriage and a 'no' for an answer usually leads to emotional outbursts coupled with accusations of homophobia and bigotry. The far-right defends marriage as a fundamentally Judeo-Christian institution that forms the bedrock of modern Western society and maintains that its definition should be preserved as the union between a man and a woman. Exceptions aside, overall the centre-left and the centre-right remain opposed to any changes to the current Marriage Act (1961) and Marriage Amendment Act (2004). When tensions flare up, representatives from each of the two major political parties tend to come forward reassuring the public that the only way to bring this debate to a resolve is through a conscience vote.
Although Australia's gay marriage movement is not a formalised initiative masterminded by individual figureheads like a Susan B. Anthony of the Suffragist movement or a Martin Luther-King Jr of the Civil Rights movement, its advocates nonetheless draw historic parallels between their own struggles and those faced by yesteryear's great social reformists in the United States. Purporting itself to be a bastion of freedom and social justice, the gay marriage movement resonates particularly well with the politically indifferent members of Australia's Generation Y.
The fact is, comparing Australia's gay marriage movement with the United States' gender equality and race equality movements is an insult to the latter. Let's not forget that the core purpose of any 'civil equality' movement is to seek equality of treatment, not equality of label. African Americans in the United States never fought for the right to call themselves "Caucasian" Americans. They didn't want that label. They fought for the right to be treated the same as Caucasian Americans. Women in the United States did not fight for the right to call themselves "men". They didn't want that label. They fought to be treated the same as men.
Each of the two movements had a clearly defined objective. They wanted the law amended so as to curtail discrimination against those perceived to be affected. When their objectives were achieved, each movement gracefully ceased fire and deservedly found its place in the archives of history as a champion of social justice. The Suffragist movement ended in 1920 with the Nineteenth Amendment (XIX) to the US Constitution prohibiting any citizen from being denied the right to vote on the basis of gender and the US Civil Rights movement ended with the passing of the Civil Rights Act (1968).
A little known fact is that Australia's gay marriage movement has actually had its own "Nineteenth Amendment" moment when the Rudd Government passed the Same Sex Relationships Act (2008) extending to same-sex couples the same legal rights, benefits and facilities as opposite sex-couples. Supported by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, this reform afforded same-sex couples and dependant children identical legal rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples applicable across the portfolios of taxation, superannuation, social welfare, medicare, aged care, child support, immigration and select areas of defence.
If Australia's gay marriage advocates were as sincere to their cause as the Suffragists and Civil Rights activists, their campaign would have ended gracefully in 2008. Instead, their outcries continue on tirelessly. Every so often there is a rally hosted in some city usually with a Greens Senator presenting as a guest speaker, echoeing spiteful negativity chanted against anybody with a differing viewpoint. Empirical observation suggests that the gay marriage lobby is not fighting for the equality of treatment, it is in fact fighting for the equality of label. Legally recognised civil unions are not good enough for them. They want to be able to apply the label "marriage" to same-sex relationships.
While Australians support the equality of treatment for same-sex couples, in order for us to support the equality of label, there needs to be a compelling argument explaining why it is absolutely necessary to redefine the word "marriage". Language as a scientific phenomenon didn't forge itself into existence overnight. Centuries and millennia of natural selection has enabled it to develop complex grammar, syntax and morphemes. Due to this gradual refinement, the rules of language have come to be undergird with convincingly logical justifications.
Noun categories and forms are a by-product of this refinement. They enable language to evolve from generality to specificity marking a requisite distinction between noun categories and forms. For instance, the noun transport is a category. The nouns plane, helicopter, bus, train, motorcycle and car are forms of transport. Forms can be categories in themselves. The noun car is a category. The nouns sedan, hatchback, ute and station-wagon are forms of cars. These categories and forms enable speakers to substitute ambiguity with clarity, and generality with specificity.
Gender and sexuality are no exception. Subconsciously we know this and continue to use nouns concerning kinship, sexuality and domestic partnerships that mark a strong distinction between different individuals without remotely construing the use of such nouns as gender or sex-based discrimination. There are gender-neutral categories in English that comprise gender-specific forms. For instance, the words parent, sibling, spouse and offspring tell us nothing about the gender of the individual being referred to. But the words father and mother, brother and sister, husband and wife, son and daughter do. The word homosexual similarly tells us nothing about the gender, but the words gay and lesbian do. The word unmarried tells us nothing about the gender, but the words bachelor and spinster do.
When it comes to forms of relationships, the broader category of domestic partnership in itself neither tells us about the gender composition of the relationship nor about the quantity and sexuality of participants involved. This is why we have specific nouns that do reveal such information. The word monogamy denotes a union between two individuals while polygamy denotes a union between multiple individuals. Neither term indicates the gender of those involved. The distinction between monogamy and polygamy is based on quantity, irrespective of gender composition. But the noun form polygyny specifically refers to the union between a man and multiple women while polyandry specifically refers to the union between a woman and multiple men.
Marriage is a form of monogamy. Polygyny and polyandry are forms of polygamy. In their efforts to demonstrate that the noun "marriage" does not inherently imply man and woman, gay marriage advocates contend that matrimonial nouns are always gender neutral. We know from the examples of the nouns polygyny and polyandry that this is far from true. In order for polygyny to be polygyny, the reference necessarily has to be to 'one male with multiple females'. The minute you alter the composition to 'one female with multiple males' you cannot continue to use the term polygyny and have to start using polyandry - another label designed specifically to denote another gender composition.
No word currently exists for a relationship between multiple men or between multiple women. But potentially we could introduce the neologisms of homogyny to denote the union between multiple women and homoandry to denote the union between multiple men. It is clear that these distinctions - both current and proposed - don't exist because language prejudicially loves one gender and hates the other. They exist in order to enable us to be specific when communicating.
Following in this line of reasoning, we can appreciate that the noun domestic partnership is a category. The nouns marriage and civil union are its forms. The noun marriage has been understood as a domestic partnership between opposite genders, not within the same gender. In Australia, this definition of marriage is enshrined in the Marriage Amendment Act (2004) which holds that: "Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others". This legal definition is consistent with how marriage has been understood for centuries not just as an arbitrary Judeo-Christian social construct, but as a linguistic construct manifest across all known cultures.
The famous same-sex relationship of Pan Zhang and Wang Zhongxian enjoyed equal social and legal acceptance in China during the Zhou Dynasty (1046-256 BCE), but the label "marriage" was never applied to it. Roman Emperor Nero (54-68 CE) had a same-sex relationship with male partner Sporus. Their union was marked with ceremonialism but never officially referred to by the label "marriage" either. While classical Rome was tolerant of homosexuality, conubium (marriage) could only take place between a civis Romanus (male Roman citizen) and a civis Romana (female Roman citizen).
The word "marriage" derives from the Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE which in itself derives from the Old French word marier (to marry) and ultimately the Latin maritare meaning to provide with a husband or wife. The adjective maritus, meaning matrimonial or nuptial, could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife". Thus, in Ancient Rome the institution of marriage had already been defined as a monogamous union between a man and a woman, well before the rise of Christianity. While there are numerous references to polygamy in the Bible, this was never recognised as a form of "marriage". As is clear, marriage is a gender-based noun form. Redefining it would downgrade its use to a gender-neutral noun category, which would be akin to referring to your brother as a 'sibling' when you can refer to him as a brother, or referring to your mother as a 'parent' when you can refer to her as a mother.
Redefining marriage comes with further implications. Doing so once on the basis of gender inevitably sets a precedent inviting the advocacy of further redefinition on the basis of quantity. Advocates of polygyny (a union where a man has more than one wives) and polyandry (where a woman has more than one husbands) could potentially seek to further redefine marriage chasing the same legal status as monogamous marriage. While the relative moral compass of the society at such a time in the future may be predisposed to accepting such relationships, it makes no sense to obfuscate the nature of language by forcibly shoving every form of relationship under the one umbrella of 'marriage' regardless of gender composition and quantity of participants.
The label civil union is gender-neutral itself. It could either refer to the monogamous domestic partnership between, typically speaking, two males, or two females. If this isn't good enough for the gay marriage lobby, then they need to invent separate neologisms for each type of relationship. Perhaps garriage to denote the monogamous union between two males and larriage to denote the monogamous union between two females. That way the gay marriage lobby can be satisfied that they have achieved the equality of treatment, as well as equality of label since a garriage, larriage and marriage will all have equal recognition and status in the sight of the law anyway.
The fact that gay marriage advocates continue to allege that Australian society remains imbued with rampant discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation despite the 2008 reforms is disingenuous. There is no simpler way to rebut this allegation than to pinpoint that "discrimination" is actually differential treatment of different classes of the citizenry despite holding the same capabilities and qualities. Under institutionalised discrimination, non-compliance results in punitive consequences. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are cases in point. Without necessarily engaging in acts of sexual intimacy, one could potentially be arrested and executed without trial for merely 'being' homosexual.
In contrast, Australia's 2011 census records 33,700 same-sex couples living freely in the nation comprising of 17,000 male same-sex couples and 16,100 female same-sex couples. There are 6,300 children being raised by same-sex couples. Yet the gay marriage lobby cannot seem to get enough of making Australia sound like a global pariah that categorically suppresses the rights of its citizens on grounds of sexual orientation. Australian gays and lesbians walk around freely, visit dedicated bars and nightclubs for gay and lesbian people. Sydney's Mardi Gras remains one of the largest cultural festivities around the world. There are gay Australian actors, singers and sportspeople admired by millions. We even have gay and lesbian Australian politicians on both sides of our political divide.
To conclude, the passing of the Same Sex Relationships Act (2008) and the demonstrable lack of institutional discrimination against homosexual individuals and same-sex couples is clear testimony that the battle for the equality of treatment for gays and lesbians has already been won in Australia. But the battle for the equality of label is a perfidious and futile attack on language, which would only result in language losing its ability to draw gender and sexuality based distinctions. Australia's gay marriage movement masquerades as a successor to yesterday's great social reform movements, but on closer look we find that any such comparison is an insult to the Suffragist and the Civil Rights movements. In the years ahead Australians will have to decide whether to preserve an institution that has served them well for many centuries, or to redefine that institution to satisfy a small minority of activists who are already blessed with equal rights. The founding fathers of our nation saw fit to include marriage in the Constitution, and intended that it retain its original and sole definition – the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others. Any attempts to redefine marriage should therefore be put to the Australian people in a referendum and not be left to the will of unelected judges or self-interested politicians.
47+ gay marriages in Canberra this weekend.
(idiom alert)
The sky is falling!
Posted by: Arthur Dent | December 3, 2013 at 07:34 PM
No Arthur just like the idiot politician in NZ the sky is not falling
it will be a slow progress to repression of freedoms
little by little the rights to object to the homosexualisation of my children will be taken from me
my right to object to homosexuality will be taken from me
gays have been worked up into a frothing at the mouth frenzy over marriage for no apparent reason as this article states
SSM is a vehicle to attack what the homosexuals despise
their filthy agenda is the homosexualisation of society with all the repression of freedoms we take for granted
Posted by: oldskool | December 3, 2013 at 10:29 PM
It's a refreshingly thoughtful article. It is worth noting that in 2006 the ACT passed a Civil Union Act that made no mention of the word marriage. Howard and Ruddock overturned it on the basis that it was "just marriage by another name". So I suspect conservative opposition to this is more than a linguistic one.
And on the linguistic side, it does appear we need some word to reflect one's state. The ATO need to know so as to apply the right rules to your situation. They have go to enormous linguistic efforts to extract that information:
Did you have a spouse - married or de facto - at any time during 2012-13? Your spouse includes another person (whether of the same sex or opposite sex) who you were in a relationship with that was registered under a prescribed state or territory law, and although not legally married to you, lived with you on a genuine domestic basis in a relationship as a couple
Quite a mouthful really. Maybe partnered is becoming the new word to describe all of that, but it too has issues: couples dating but not living together, often consider themselves partnered.
Your concerns about changing the meanings of words seems unwarranted. English is littered with words that have changed meaning over time. As the norm changes, words change to make communicating easier.
husband has nothing to do with marriage or marital status. It means house owner.
quarantine refers to the 40 days Christ spent in the desert, or the 40 days a widow can remain in her dead husband's house. Speakers of Italian or Latin will see the 40 glaring out at them.
enthusiasm means to be inspired or possessed by a god.
I suspect the religious nutters are just going to have to learn to live with the evolving nature of language. The French have shown how futile it is trying to stop a language from evolving. marriage is after all, just a word.
Posted by: dB | December 4, 2013 at 07:41 AM
Somehow I suspect we won't be seeing any expense claims from Barnaby or Brandis to attend those weddings!
Posted by: dB | December 4, 2013 at 07:43 AM
object to the homosexualisation of my children
There's probably a far higher risk that they'll be heterosexualised, and I assume you'd find that just as offensive?
Surely all that matters is that their family and friends love and support them regardless of which card they drew from the sexuality lottery.
Posted by: dB | December 4, 2013 at 07:46 AM
Finally, an article to read, instead of days of nothing or near nothing.
Nothing but clips of other stories.
Wake up, MH, Gillard is gone, there is no need to run 'Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax' any more.
I had given up reading it and came back here in desperation at the flood of anti-conservatism in the ABC and Fairfax.
Ranting is no substitute for informed comment.
Posted by: Hans | December 4, 2013 at 07:51 AM
A good, well researched, article, Sherry Sufi, although
the implications of same-sex "marriage" go far beyond linguistics. As Oldskool has pointed out, the danger posed by such proposed legislation relates to loss of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and parental rights.
There is no place for political propaganda in democratic schools, whether it be carbon mythology, promotion of homosexuality, or anything else.
dB's reference to so-called "heterosexualisation" constitutes a fallacious argument. Presumably he is referring to a realistic acknowledgement of the family bond which factually unites one generation to the next,
and enables children to know and be loved by their own natural parents.
Proponents of the LGBT etc. agenda have continued to wage war after they have won their objective. Same-sex couples are free to hold commitment ceremonies at a social level, in which no one is compelled to participate under pain of severe legal penalty, as inevitable follows legally changing a definition of marriage.
Radical activists will never be satisfied, even if SSM legislation were passed. The next step would be polygamy, polyandry,etc followed by other practices which are still regarded as depravity. Most dangerous
of these would be decriminalising paedophilia as "another form of sexual orientation"
A point of correction: The ancient Romans did not exhibit tolerance of homosexuality. It was in ancient Greece that it was socially acceptable. Tacitus and other Roman historians make very clear that Nero's act, which he (the Emperor) called "marriage", was considered as blatant depravity on the part of contemporary Romans
Posted by: Nona Florat | December 4, 2013 at 05:24 PM
This is indeed a well-written article, thank you for writing this, Sherry Sufi. You have correctly identified the difference between unions and marriages, something that all of the 'progressives' should pay attention to.
Posted by: Michael Smyth | December 4, 2013 at 07:49 PM
I agree with the support for Sherry Sufi's article. I would have written earlier but I am a slow typist.
Posted by: Jack | December 5, 2013 at 08:16 AM
I totally agree with you Nona, well said. One of the things that amuses and scares me is the way the homosexual lobby, socialist coalition and Islamic ideology all use our democratic system of laws to push their own agenda's on us to amend our way of life and culture to their's. Looks to me like it might be a race to see what happens to Australia, the first homosexual only nation, the North Korea of the southern hemisphere or an Islamic state of Indonesia.
Posted by: Jim Witt | December 5, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Actually, I was more concerned with the welfare of a gay kid growing up in oldskool's household. Will she be as loved and cherished as her straight siblings? When she reaches adulthood and meets the woman she wants to spend the rest of her life with, will oldskool be there to rejoice in her happiness?
Posted by: dB | December 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM
I cannot speak for oldskool, but if I ever have any children, and they turn out to be gay, then I'll still love them. At the end of the day, family is family, and that doesn't change because of sexual preference.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Opposing SSM does not equate to homophobia. Leftards and progressives need to learn that crucial fact, otherwise they'll continue to alienate those people who are indifferent.
Posted by: Michael Smyth | December 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM
And when your hypothetical gay daughter meets the woman she wants to spend the rest of her life with, would your love extend to standing by her side at some ceremony, and handing the bride over to the bride? Would it extend to rocking up at the reception and giving an amusing anecdotal speech about her life?
So long as the ceremony isn't held in a church, and isn't recognised by the state, you'd be a proud loving father up to that point? But if it is recognised by the state, you wouldn't want to attend?
Posted by: dB | December 6, 2013 at 04:06 PM
dB
I can't see how that could possibly happen
neither my wife nor I have "gay genes"
so they can't possibly be "born gay"
or is that a lie too?
but thanks for your concern dB, my right to object to whatever I want should remain my right and something all sensible people should fight for rather believing emotional lies
Posted by: oldskool | December 6, 2013 at 07:19 PM
Thank you, Jim. You have made a very good comment in pointing out that radical lobbyists, whether homosexual, socialist or Islamist, all seek to impose on us an agenda which has a potential to destroy our freedom and democracy.
Of relevance here is a film on YouTube, "What same-sex 'marriage' did to Massachusetts"
Anyone concerned about our future in Australia should take the time to view it.
It is horrifying in the extreme. Let us take heed before it is too late.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZXzUpzHLkA
Posted by: Nona Florat | December 6, 2013 at 07:37 PM
neither my wife nor I have "gay genes"
How do you know? I don't have red hair, but I'm pretty sure I carry the red hair gene.
so they can't possibly be "born gay"
I've no idea whether it's determined at the moment of conception (genetic), or due to hormones in the womb, or whether it happens after birth. To me it's like left-handedness... it happens.... does it matter when?
Do you believe you can control whether or not your kids turn out gay?
but thanks for your concern
It was for your kids, and your reply hasn't exactly alleviated it.
Posted by: dB | December 6, 2013 at 08:20 PM
dB
so you are unsure
If it "happens after birth" it is a choice is it not?
"hormones in the womb" - that sounds a bit odd? or even genetic
I still am unsure how my kids could turn out gay unless educated to be such.
sophist such as you don't know why their arguments make no sense
lies can never be supported on anything but emotion
immorality is what it is
Posted by: oldskool | December 6, 2013 at 09:12 PM
If it "happens after birth" it is a choice is it not?
Appendicitis happens after birth, but nobody chooses that.
"hormones in the womb" - that sounds a bit odd?
Cambridge and Cardiff Uni researchers reckon hormone levels in pregnant mice can control anxiety levels in their offspring when they eventually reach adulthood. But I agree it's a huge step from anxious mice to gay humans.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10226035/Anxiety-linked-to-low-levels-of-key-hormone-in-womb.html
I still am unsure how my kids could turn out gay
Well I for one hope they don't.
Posted by: dB | December 6, 2013 at 09:57 PM
Thanks dB
at least we agree on that hope
do you find it peculiar that as promiscuity, fornication, pornography et al are on the rise that other sexual perversions are no longer considered by some to be abnormal?
Posted by: oldskool | December 6, 2013 at 10:40 PM
dB, as seems to be your wont, you miss the point.
Love for family doesn't change just because you disagree with them on their decisions.
Posted by: Michael Smyth | December 7, 2013 at 08:54 AM
So what does that mean in practical terms? Would you discourage her union? Would you pay for the reception? Would you embrace her "spouse" (to use the ATO terminology) as your daughter-in-law?
Posted by: dB | December 7, 2013 at 09:24 AM
please note Michael that
dB
has no valid argument so he has to resorts to emotional tactics to support his case as the lies can not be supported.
Posted by: oldskool | December 7, 2013 at 01:24 PM
I think what you call "emotional tactics" I call empathy. There are real live families going through scenarios like this all the time.
Parents who previously were opposed to any recognised gay unions often change their minds when it's dumped in their laps by an offspring that they truly love. In fact, I don't know of any parents where that's not the case. I accept it probably does happen that some parents remain steadfastly opposed; the resultant family tragedy is probably not much discussed, so maybe we don't get to hear about them so much.
oldskool even if your genes and/or parenting skills are so pure that you can guarantee it'll never be an issue for you, surely just for a minute, you're capable of putting yourself in the shoes of parents who aren't so lucky/skilled as you?
And which lies are you referring to?
Posted by: dB | December 7, 2013 at 01:57 PM
yes I can sympathise how sad it must be for the parents of gay kids and certainly how much more this type of incidence will occur with the lies spread to our kids or the propaganda and indoctrination of the lies
ie
"born that way"
"you need to try to find out"
"it's normal"
"10% of everyone is gay"
"it's healthy"
etc etc....
all these are lies
and the lies and propaganda are fueled by useful idiots like you
Posted by: oldskool | December 7, 2013 at 03:03 PM
I know dB is resorting to emotional arguments, because that is all SSM advocates have on their side. I have even had an SSM advocate admit that there is no logical basis for her position.
Posted by: Michael Smyth | December 7, 2013 at 04:00 PM
I noticed that you made an interesting comment about language earlier in this thread, dB, and it is one that should be answered.
You made the point that language evolves over time and does not necessarily remain constant - and that is technically correct. However, what you have not acknowledged is that the factor of evolving languages is irrelevant and invalid when talking about institutions, such as marriage, monarchy and other institutions that have stood the test of time.
As Sherri Sufi has correctly pointed out, marriage - until recently where the PC brigade has won victories through emotion and irrationality - has been exclusively heterosexual, regardless of tolerance towards homosexual behaviour in societies.
Posted by: Michael Smyth | December 7, 2013 at 04:09 PM
I wonder what devout Jews do when their kids are exposed to "Get Some Pork on your Fork" ads on TV. Presumably all religious families are at risk of their kids being exposed to things that are counter to their personal belief system.
That you believe something is wrong may well make it wrong for you, and may even make it wrong for your kids. But it doesn't make it wrong for the rest of us. We never signed up to your set of rules.
Posted by: dB | December 7, 2013 at 05:32 PM
dB
pork is a meat, not a political agenda, However
if the consumption of pork were indoctrinated by school, forced on religion, biased in the court system, supported by politicians, and objectors were sanctioned then yes that would be a problem
Posted by: oldskool | December 7, 2013 at 06:10 PM
This boring little dB labours under the misconception that if he prattles on long enough with what he believes is intelligent and irrefutable argument he will manoeuvre someone into validating his sympathy based nonsense.
Posted by: Allan | December 7, 2013 at 06:19 PM
Do I understand this correctly?
Does dB want Marriage Equality for pigs?
He lost me about his 4th post.
Posted by: Peter Simmons | December 7, 2013 at 07:32 PM
Somehow I really doubt there are schools out there forcing your kid to have gay sex (well ok, maybe a few Catholic schools haven't got that memo yet). And obviously if there are you get your kid the hell out of there and call the police.
I suspect what they might be doing is teaching your kid society's rules on the topic. But isn't that a good thing, given he has to live in that society and share it with other people of different or no faith?
Just like the devout Jewish kid needs to know not to be alarmed when he sees someone chowing down on a half rack of ribs, your son needs to know not to be alarmed when he sees two guys walking down the street hand in hand.
In both cases all the kids need to know is that what they're witnessing is well within society's rules and that not all people share their faith, so don't panic. Somehow I suspect your son may not get that lesson from you.
Posted by: dB | December 7, 2013 at 07:33 PM
dB
as you well know the gay lobby have 3 items on their agenda
1. homosexualisation of society
2. homosexual indoctrination into the schools
3. homosexualisation of everything
Russia has banned homosexual propaganda aimed at children
you dB well know the agenda
you know the lies and so do I so why are you attempting to convince me of the lies?
you have no ability to defend your lies or else you would have done so already
Posted by: oldskool | December 7, 2013 at 07:50 PM
Now we are getting to the nub of this issue when we discuss the language being used.
Any worthwhile debater knows this trick of getting your opponent to talk your language.
The obvious example is using the words "gay", "same-sex-marriage" etc. to neutralise the argument.
How do you debate that these words mean someting other than what the words themselves imply, if you are trapped into using them yourself?
Fortunately, we rampant heterosexuals can fall back on the word "straight".
Posted by: AlterEgo | December 7, 2013 at 07:52 PM
Yep
And prominent gay liberals like Tim Wilson and our p.m's sister would be banned from visiting Russia indefinitely
That's hilarious and kinda cool for two arrogant peopke
Eat humble pile
Posted by: Georgia | December 7, 2013 at 09:00 PM
Russia has banned homosexual propaganda aimed at children
They've banned a lot more than that. Are you thinking of migrating?
Posted by: dB | December 7, 2013 at 09:06 PM
No, I am not thinking of migrating to Russia
dB are you avoiding the facts of my previous post?
if you are such a sophist for homsexual marriage - you would know full well what the rank and file homosexual looks and acts like
why not roll out your rank and file homosexuals for the news rolls rather than the normal looking homosexuals
or is this another cover up another lie?
Posted by: oldskool | December 7, 2013 at 09:35 PM
Wow! And you're an example of the father figure we fear kids growing up with gay mums might be missing out on. No wonder kids like Maya Newell turned out so well.
Posted by: dB | December 8, 2013 at 08:31 AM
well done dB
use your selective lies
Do you now want to talk about domestic violence in gay relationships or is that "homophobic" of me to talk about facts?
Do you think choosing to be gay is a healthy lifestyle choice for me to encourage my kids toward?
10 year less life expectancy and all the medical ailments you choose to bring to yourself?
the promiscuity of gays
you know how it works- or do you still want to peddle the propaganda and lies and isolate the exceptions rather than the rule?
Posted by: oldskool | December 8, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Well said. I make another argument about the use and abuse of language in this matter.
Same-sex marriage advocates choose to apply the concept of 'equality' selectively. What they argue for is equality of different types of couples. What about other types of equality. Apart from mixed doubles tennis, marriage as it stands today is one of our only, and perhaps our greatest, institution to have PERFECT GENDER EQUALITY. Gender equality of this level in the workplace or in politics will never be possible or even desirable. In marriage we already have gender equality, and same-sex marriage will mean an end to gender equality in marriage. Same sex marriage is a change in the TYPE of equality. It does not represent MORE equality.
Posted by: Turtle of WA | December 8, 2013 at 10:15 PM