It started with a kiss: Gay protests in your Facebook

Caroline says:

04:13pm | 19/04/11

So if you know it’s going to offend, why say it?

dancan says:

04:49pm | 19/04/11

You know what makes me cringe?  The bogan woman I saw the other day, nasty as all hell with a g-string riding a good 5cm above her trackies, smoking while pushing a pram and screaming at her…hrm…boyfriend?  Partner? Whatever the hell he was. That image was far more offensive than the one above.

Budz says:

04:54pm | 19/04/11

I’m with you there. I’m all for gay rights and gay marriage, but it still doesn’t change the fact I don’t like seeing 2 guys making out. But then again there are a lot of things I see in day to day life that I don’t like seeing.

Joeyjoejoejnr says:

05:04pm | 19/04/11

Dancan - I’m missing your point? Is this some sort of Cringe off now or something where we all come up with even more cringe inducing pictures then the last.
Yep, the image you mention sounds cringe inducing. Doesn’t make the above picture any less so though.
Or are you trying to say that Homosexuals are just like bogan women?

Bobster says:

05:11pm | 19/04/11

I don’t mean to offend (that’s not to say I actually care if this offends anyone), but have you stopped to think what that actually says about you?

Do you cringe when two heterosexuals kiss? That is to say, do you cringe at weddings or do you find that a beautiful expression of two people’s love?

If the answer to the above questions is yes, then you have some further questions to ask yourself.

Bobster says:

05:13pm | 19/04/11

^ If the answer to the above questions is no.  Apologies.

Joeyjoejoejnr says:

05:20pm | 19/04/11

Bobster… re-read time for you. I never said I don’t mean to offend.
Two people of opposite sex kissing at wedding sounds completely natural and normal and when I have witnessed it in the past has always made me smile with warmth.
For what ever reason and perhaps I am alone on this, the above picture makes me cringe. Thems the facts sorry. I guess being honest (even if offensive) if is a good starting point for discussions and perhaps eventual understanding… No? or should I just pretend that it is ok?
On the subject of being offensive, I have a feeling this may offend also, but on your comment about “what it says about me” I must admit that I am somewhat comfortable with what it says about me. A cringe feels more like a reflex than the symptom of an attitude… pehaps????

Sarah M says:

09:25am | 20/04/11

Joey, I think you might be trolling as this is just a silly statement to make without any assertions as to what outcomes you hope to achieve.
however, in response…
Looking at two women rub up against each other and pash in a grotesquely over enthusiastic way makes me cringe… Not because they are lesbian, but because more likely that they aren’t and that it is done for male entertainment. If we were going to regulate things that are cringe worthy I bet you would be the first one in to defend the almost pornographic video clips of the current age, because let me guess, you are a “red blooded man”.

Bobster says:

09:40am | 20/04/11

So a heterosexual kiss gives cause to smile but a homosexual kiss induces a cringe? That’s what you’re saying?

I’m not saying you shouldn’t express your opinion, I’m just saying I consider there to be an insidious element to your position.

The thing about expressing opinions is you have to expect them to be challenged - especially when they contain apparent double-standards and appear to suggest that homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal.

Cloud Strife says:

11:32am | 20/04/11

Why do find two men kissing so offensive and disgusting? I bet you wouldn’t have a problem with two women, esp if they were ‘hot’.

Lord Thistlewist says:

12:30pm | 20/04/11

Your honesty is to be commended, but I would hope that you keep an open mind. Although you may find the image of two men kissing cringe-worthy now, what’s to say that it will ever be thus? Like all things new, it can take some getting used to. I think your response to two men kissing might change if you got to know some gay people. You might then come to appreciate the beauty of love in all it’s forms.

Markus says:

04:07pm | 19/04/11

“2% of the population, 20% of the articles on Punch.”
Islam?

AliceC says:

04:07pm | 19/04/11

Yep. Agenda is homophobia. When this goes away, agenda ceases to exist.

Tom says:

04:09pm | 19/04/11

First of all, it’s more than 2% of the population (most estimates are somewhere around 6%).

Secondly it’s clearly not 20% of the articles on the punch. Even if it were though, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. If you hadn’t noticed, gay marriage and gay rights in general are a serious and contentious social issue in Australia right now and it’s entirely legitimate and responsible for the Punch to discuss it.

On a deeper note, the whole “gay agenda” line is one charged with prejudice and negativity. Yes a lot of us have an agenda (that agenda being equal rights and an end to discrimination) but the term in the context you use it is steeped in homophobia and a misguided and insulting notion that gay people are somehow out to ‘recruit’ or threaten society in some way. To any rational person that is a silly, dangerous and downright insulting idea.

undertow says:

04:12pm | 19/04/11

I’m 99% sure you made those statistics up.

Rosie says:

05:01pm | 19/04/11

As far as I can see the only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is that homosexuals ‘do sex’ differently - right?.

Well, during a long and adventurous girlhood I dated a lot of men, who suggested that we do sex differently. Some of the suggestions would make your eyes fall out.  They would certainly make the photo above look even tamer than it is.

The thing is, if we are going to judge people for being ‘perverted’  then we need to dig around and find out what sort of ‘perversion’ straight people are up to so that we can judge them too.

Don’t like watching anyone of any gender kissing passionately - passion should be private.

Sad Sad Reality says:

05:02pm | 19/04/11

@Markus. Certainly. What’s left? Another 20% for women and the rest for politics. Sounds about right.

@AliceC. The agenda is power. All else is smoke an mirrors.

@Tom. Gay marriage and gay rights only appear to be a serious and contentious issue because of the disproportionate amount of media coverage they receive. This article is a great example of that fact. The average person doesn’t really care.

As for the rest of your comment, it appears you have read:
After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s, by Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

This beacon for the then emerging homosexual movement (first published in 1989), sets out a plan of attack to gain the disproportionate focus on homosexuals we all enjoy today. 

They state: “We can extract the following principle for our campaign to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.”

The whole thing is about power.

They state: “The trick is to get the (sic) bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his (sic) homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd.”

Is that not what this article is about?

They go on to say: “We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.”

Sounds a little like the ploys of a fascist dictatorship for me. And I thought the gripe was about freedom.

@undertow. 14% of all people know that.

Sarah says:

05:11pm | 19/04/11

I agree, I want to hear a article talking up heterosexuals. Something along the lines of “Heterosexuals, keeping the human race alive since day dot”. I do wonder though, out of those 20%, how many are for or against homosexuality.

And to answer Markus, about 2% of the world population is gay, about 20% is islamic.

Tom says:

10:40pm | 19/04/11

Okay @Sad Sad Reality (wow I just realised how ironically relevant your screen name is)

First of all, congratulations on knowledge of american far-right talking points when it comes to gay rights. Clearly there is no point actually engaging with you on this matter, but I’m going to reply to you anyway so that hopefully others perhaps reading this list of comments will have some context.

You are absolutely correct when you say there is a campaign manifesto set out in the (I assume accurate) textual quotes you provide. The media management and message strategies set out there are (whilst blunt in language) very similar to any such strategy produced by any group with an agenda. The only real difference between the gay rights lobby and McDonalds is that we are selling the concept of equality whereas Maccas are selling cheeseburgers.

You claim the attempt to change the hearts and minds of the population is like the “ploys of a fascist dictatorship”. Clearly though, the whole idea of ending prejudice is inherently about changing hearts and minds. Replace “gay” and “straight” in your quotations with “black” and “white” and you effectively get the strategy pursued by civil rights activists. Of course it’s about changing people’s minds - that’s an entirely legitimate thing to attempt and the only way to end homophobia.

Lastly to the issue you raise that is also brought up in a disturbing proportion of the comments on this article: the idea that the media is somehow conspiring to over represent its reporting of gay rights issues.
A: Clearly you won’t be satisfied until there is NO reporting of such issues
B: The media reports on what is news - clearly gay marriage is newsworthy, it’s dividing one of our major political parties and motivating thousands on either side in public protest.
C: Yes there was a concerted (successful) attempt in the 90’s to increase public awareness on the issue (from none to some). Awareness of an issue is part of how change is attained in a democracy.

Yes the gripe is about freedom, the freedom for hundreds of thousands of Australians to live their lives free of prejudice. I think that that freedom trumps your ‘freedom’ to live without hearing anything about anybody different from yourself.

Abbi says:

07:36am | 20/04/11

@AliceC - “Yep. Agenda is homophobia. When this goes away, agenda ceases to exist”.

For some reason I read this comment completely wrong. I thought you said “Gender ceases to exist”! Then I thought, hmmmm maybe I’m onto something. Could the root cause of homophobia be that homosexuality messes with long held, deeply entrenched gender roles that privilege one gender over another and that form the very basis of our society socially, politically, economically and legally? Uh oh!

Sad Sad Reality says:

09:25am | 20/04/11

Tom, “psychological attack” doesn’t sound very innocent to me.

A: Not true. I think we could stand to have two or three of these articles a year in the interests of fair reportage.
B: The media has made gay marriage newsworthy by focusing an inordinate amount of attention upon it. The average person wishes all homosexual people well and just doesn’t care.
C: Agreed. The concerted effort mirrored those of a political entity using whatever means necessary (Kirk and Madsen argue that lying about the realities of common homosexual lifestyles and habits is a necessity to achieve their aims) to rise to power.

This is not about freedom. It never has been. It is about power. It is about a tiny minority of Australians screaming for a disproportionate amount of political, social and media power.

Thanks for illustrating all of Kirk and Madsen’s attack strategies throughout your comment.

Marginalise, blame-shift, preach. Textbook.

Zee says:

11:10am | 20/04/11

Let me get this straight… 2 men kissing is a “pshycological attack” akin to “facism” promoting some sort of world domination? But actively oppressing the rights of gays is maintaining freedom? Or do you not think there is active oppression?

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:38am | 20/04/11

Zee, I’m saying this article represents an attempt to bait people into saying they feel uncomfortable looking at the picture above in order to marginalise them and brainwash them into thinking their natural reaction is wrong. Not wanting to see two men kiss is not hatred of homosexuals. It’s not wanting to see two men kiss. It is the same as not wanting to see any couple making a very public display of affection in an attempt to be noticed. Which, if you’re honest, is exactly what the article is about. 

I’m saying the way the homosexual movement seeks to achieve its aim of gaining power (it is not about oppression) is very similar to a fascist state.

I don’t think there is active oppression. Is the Mardi Gras possible in a society with active oppression? Are gay priests possible in a society with active oppression? Are gay clubs possible in a society with active oppression? Are Gay, Lesbian and Queer Studies at Universities possible in a society with active oppression? Is gay adoption possible in a society with active oppression?

AdamC says:

11:51am | 20/04/11

SSR, aren’t you doing a bit of a strawman thing here?

Gays are not so much ‘actively oppressed’ as they are excluded from some social institutions and also infrequently subject to abuse and discrimination. I am sure the latter is worse if, for example, you live in less urbanised areas.

You seem to be obsessed with this subject.

Sad Sad Reality says:

12:02pm | 20/04/11

AdamC, I’m just sick of reading the same lies trotted out every week.

baal says:

12:19pm | 21/04/11

@Sad Sad Reality.
I am tired of the arguments between the straights and the gays.
Gay people only seek power becuase they were oppressed for so long and do not trust the state to protect them.
Also as a bisexual man I can assure you that once you expand gay too include us Queers as well we are legion and we are everywhere, your coworkers, your friends and your family.
You have no freaking idea how many bisexuals there are and that is only counting the sexually active ones.

Chase Stevens says:

04:37pm | 19/04/11

Yes, your sexual preference makes you your sexual preference.

James Martel says:

10:25pm | 19/04/11

i think bikinis is trying to draw attention to the hijacking of the word “gay” by the homosexual community.  the dictionary definition is: happily excited…

Astrosodi says:

11:21am | 20/04/11

@ James Martel: It’s always interesting to read someone saying that the homosexual community ‘hijacked’ the word gay. These are words that the heterosexual community historically used to describe homoexuals, and usually in a derogatory or demeaning way. The same way that words that white people used to describe, neagtively, non-white people have been ‘reclaimed’ by them and turned around. That’s not ‘hijacking’ - the heterosexual community and white community respectively gave those words away by using them in the first place. All the minority groups have done is reclaim them to take the power of the heterosexual and white communites to offend and subjugate the minority by using those words.
Cheers
Astro

Wayne Kerr says:

04:08pm | 20/04/11

@Astrosodi
I think the word “gay” first started being used in a homsosexual sense by the american film industry by homosexual actors (apparently it was first used in a film by Cary Grant in the movie “Bringing up Baby” and then over the years it came into the mainstream.  So there wasn’t any re-claiming being done there.  The word gay traditionally meant happy and care free.  By your definition reclaiming by the homosexual community would mean taking back the old fashioned “poofter” or “faggot” words. Note: These word were used as part of the context not to offend.

Chase Stevens says:

04:38pm | 19/04/11

You obviously care enough to comment, at least.

AliceC says:

04:09pm | 19/04/11

I’d say when homophobia and discrimination stops, then so too will the record. If women had shut up when we were told to, we never would have got the vote.

Kate says:

04:10pm | 19/04/11

We probably wouldn’t need to discuss gay people so much if they were given equal rights.

AdamC says:

04:15pm | 19/04/11

Fairs, well put.

I am especially sick of all the Sir Galahads and Eliza Cussens out there purporting to be crusading on my behalf for equality. Give it a rest!

Marty McFly says:

04:22pm | 19/04/11

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe gay people would stop banging on about the subject if they had the equal rights they deserve as a human being in a modern, Western society?

fairsfair says:

04:23pm | 19/04/11

Women still haven’t shut up AliceC - I’ll add that to my list.

There are many opressed people in our society - for varying reasons. Time for someone else to be given a voice.

I have homo-fatigue, as does a lot of other people out there. Cause fatigue is a dangerous thing.

AdamC says:

05:13pm | 19/04/11

Fairs, you have hit the nail on the head. For gay activists, just as with feminists, there is never going to be a point at which they say ‘job done’ and go off to the pub (or meat market nightclub, or hipster cafe/bar that does retro cocktails, depending on the movement). They will keep coming up with new ways that the patriarchy, society or the world at large is oppressint them or discriminating against them. And they will keep demanding new rights or privileges to redress these supposed inequalities.

It is a very destructive and never-ending cycle.

Kathy says:

06:15pm | 19/04/11

Fairsfair & AdamC - the voices of reason. I found this article quite annoying, with its all-too-familiar “more tolerant than thou” voice.

fairsfair says:

07:14pm | 19/04/11

Kathy, yes! - “tollerance” is almost a competition these days. Spruiking about about your children’s two gay aunts and two gay uncles - am I supposed to feel inferior because my parents have no homosexuals in their immediate family? whoopdefreakingdoo

Woe is me, won’t someone write an article about it?

AdamC - spot on - it is never going to stop. Shall look forward to how deafening it will be in five on ten years I suppose. Hey, maybe we should start campaigning against campaining. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em I suppose

Elphaba says:

07:25pm | 19/04/11

Great work @fairsfair.  I expected more people to totally miscontrue what you say and hated on you, but they haven’t.  Great post.

Re: the photo, I think FB deletes photos as soon as someone reports it - so I suspect that a whole lot of looking didn’t go on, and it was more about keeping the peace (as it were).  Hardly an anti-gay conspiracy…

Phil says:

07:48pm | 19/04/11

AdamC your attitude is far more likely to bring people along with the cause and bring general acceptance to gays and lesbians than that of the author. As was well spoken when will enough be enough.
As soon as gays and lesbians get something they want more and more so even if and its a big if they are allowed marriage, they will then want much more. I like others are sick of the gay lobby.
Personally I dont care what you do in the bedroom and at home, I however dont want to see to blokes locking lips, just like the gays probably dont want to see me and my wife with too much PDA. I can just tollerate you lot holding hands. You lot love to use reverse discrimination, winge about adoption etc rather than going out and starting your own agencies etc,

baal says:

12:22pm | 21/04/11

I am not sure about the gays but us bisexuals are twice as much fun as everybody else

Chase Stevens says:

04:42pm | 19/04/11

People wouldn’t need to keep on going on about it if they had equal rights. I’m sure that once Society deals with Gay People’s much greater problems then we can get to working on your tiredness.

HappyCynic says:

08:52am | 20/04/11

@SSR

Those are only people who choose to identify as homosexual, that same abstract mentions that only a very few people who anonymously admit to having homosexual feelings admit to being gay.  Then there are people who are bi or asexual.

You’re being extremely selective with the data.  Surveys of this nature are never accurate because some people are too afraid to come out of the closet and others believe there is something wrong with themselves, others still are far too brainwashed by religion to accept their fate, then there is the difference of opinion as to what defines homosexuality, the selectiveness of questions, the people selected for studies, incidence vs. prevalence and numerous other issues.

If you bigots want to keep crapping on about how small the % of gays is that’s fine, you’re free to do so, but I suggest using accurate data.  Lying only makes you look even more stupid, mind you stupidity is the first requirement of bigots so I guess I really shouldn’t be surprised.

Sad Sad Reality says:

09:29am | 20/04/11

If only counting the people that when asked the question, “Are you gay?”, say “Why yes I am.” Then yes I’m being very selective.

HappyCynic, they asked for the proof, I provided it, then out come all the excuses out of the woodwork. You wanted proof. There it is.

Bobster says:

09:45am | 20/04/11

Glad you weren’t around in 1967, BMJ.

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:59am | 20/04/11

@Bobster

The Watergate scandal involved the President of The United States, thus it involved everyone in that country, and due to America’s undeniable international influence, the rest of the world.

The Gillard Abbot question is facetious and lame. Politics in Australia already receives a majority of news media attention, as it should because their decisions affect us all.

The Libyan turmoil affects the world. Instability in the Middle East is a concern for everyone’s safety. How much coverage is it getting now?

Gay marriage is an issue that effects at most 3% of the population. Yet at the Punch there is someone banging on about it every week.

Bobster says:

02:13pm | 20/04/11

Sad Sad Reality, that’s a load of rubbish by your logic.

Watergate directly affected a handful of Democrats - everything else was indirect.

Abbott, Gillard and co aren’t given a certain percentage of column inches based on party membership or polls.

Libya only directly affects Libyans. The rest is secondary.

The point is, and you’ve just made it for mepretty well, is that just because a small number of people are directly affected, does not a minor story make.

Sad Sad Reality says:

05:05pm | 19/04/11

Do you agree Tory that there is a disproportionately large amount of articles on this site about a tiny minority of Australians?

Chase Stevens says:

05:22pm | 19/04/11

I agree with Sad. There are just not enough articles about the persecution and the illiberal treatment of Heteronormative people on The Punch!

I wonder why?

Sad Sad Reality says:

05:42pm | 19/04/11

“Studies of the 2-3% of persons who identify as homosexual.”

McConaghy N, Hadzi-Pavlovic D, Stevens C, Manicavasagar V, Buhrich N, Vollmer-Conna U. University of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17135133?log$=activity

HappyCynic says:

10:12am | 20/04/11

But SSR the proof you’ve provided is not indicative of the true number of gay people in the community therefore it is inaccurate to say that only 2% of the population are gay.

You said “2% of the population, 20% of the articles on Punch.”  The correct sentence to use is 2% of people surveyed in one study identify as being gay.  As for the 20% of articles that’s also wrong, there are 2,449 posts on the punch, 30 of which are about gay marriage.  That equals 1.2249897% of articles (to be precise), which isn’t even equal to the gay 2% of the population you allow for.  Also your link provided did not show the question asked so how would you know?

The ‘excuses’ I’ve pointed out are not ‘excuses’ they are legitimate criticisms misinterpreted statistical data (possibly deliberately misinterpreted but I have a feeling you’re not bright enough to do that).

Also dear G-d you’re dense, lighten up a little.

Bobster says:

11:10am | 20/04/11

Sad Sad Reality, Are you saying the media has a responsibility to report only those things that affect the majority of readers? So any and all minority groups should be quantified and allocated space accordingly?

Wow. People don’t ask much from the Fourth Estate these days.

Let me ask you something, how many people were directly affected by the Watergate scandal?

Express for me, as a percentage fo the American population of the time, the number of people directly affected by that incident and then tell me if it deserved coverage based on your formula.

To put it another way, should opinion polls dictate the amount of space dedicated to each of Australia’s political parties?

For example, if a poll came out tomorrow that said 50% were fro Abbott, 40 were for Gillard and 10 were for the Greens, would that mean that half of the content of every paper int he country should be dedicated to the Liberal Party, regardless of substance?

On another slant, I don’t know too many people affected by the turmoil in Libya either - wouldn’t you say that means the coverage there is skewed as well?

More Masterchef stories you reckon?

Arguing the toss over the legitimacy of those numbers here is just feeding the troll, Tory, any moron who sees the media like this clown does barely deserves a response.

Actually, let’s quantify the number of idiots and work out if too much space on The Punch is being dedicated to amatuer media commentators who don’t actually seem to understand the media’s role in society (or who think the media is only there to reinforce their own narrow world-view).

Chinaski says:

05:28pm | 20/04/11

People can come up with statistics to prove anything, Tory. Forty per cent of people know that…

Outraged says:

04:45pm | 19/04/11

Amen! I am a gay man too…and I want nothing to do with Marriage!

I clearly remember in my University days 10 years ago, the gay lefty activists were screeching: “Marriage is an antiquated, patriarchial institution we want nothing to do with”...now they say: “We love marriage! Marriage is great! We want marriage too”?!

It seems to me that LESBIANS are the ones who want “Gay Marriage” more than gay men. I dont know ANY gay men who want to get married…but it seems “girls will be girls” and always want a wedding…regardless of if they are straight or gay…

Hamish says:

04:47pm | 19/04/11

AdamC, you ungrateful bastard. Here you have all these nice, light-as-a-feather progressive columnists telling you that you must feel horribly depressed and discriminated against and you have the indecency to suggest that they’re completely exaggerating. Geez dude, haven’t you heard of a victim mentality. You’re in a minority for Christ sake. Don’t you realise you’re expected to buy into a narrative of oppression here. Everyone’s doing it. Even aborigines who look as white as I do. You know, everyone hates you and your relationship is being cheapened because you can’t pay some hippy celebrant to declare you ‘husband and husband’.  Either you’re deluded or just seriously uncool. For shame.

Barry says:

07:39pm | 19/04/11

True story. I don’t think it should be ignored that the government has done numerous things to ensure that homosexuals still gain many of the monetary benefits.  Sure, you don’t get your paper and homosexuals are perfectly entitled to argue this shows discrimination, and that they don’t possess equality, but I think at the same time we must also reflect on the good that has occurred. Our country has moved leaps and bounds.  In most scenarios, homosexuals receive just as much respect if not more than other groups.  For example today, you are probably more likely to get canned for being religious, than being homosexual in a university setting.

On another topic, I find it slightly hypocritical for the author to lament someone comparing homosexuality to beastiality.  Now, people may find this offensive, but it’s a bit rich to claim the script is gone, you can be in, and make love in a way you choose, but don’t engage in sexual activities with animals, because that’s sick!  I know she didn’t say this, but it seems she was implying that there is something wrong with beastiality.  The taboo nature of this activity though has probably stemmed a lot from religious views aswell.  It appears to have been quite common in past ages just as homosexual behaviour was.  Peter Singer, the great Aussie ethicist(or so people say) has some interesting views on the subject.  It just seemed a bit rich to be so positive on homosexuality, but view the subject of beastiality negatively.  Why is it viewed negatively?  Isn’t it just because historically it’s been taboo probably due to religious influence, although we don’t really possess any strong arguments for why it’s wrong?  I mean you can argue animal rights, but even that can be a pretty thin argument at times.  Sounds pretty similar to the way we used to view homosexuality.

Trav says:

08:12pm | 19/04/11

Erm, Barry, animals can’t give consent. Unless you’re Dr Harry “talk to the animals” Cooper…

Barry says:

08:53pm | 19/04/11

@Trav
Yeah, which I was referring to when talking about animal rights, yet it’s a fairly weak argument for most people, unless maybe you are a vegan. Humans exploit animals consistently without every asking consent.  Hey cow want to be lock in a cage, while I drain milk from your tits?  Doesn’t really get asked does it?  Animals also have the ability to get involved on their own accord.  It can be abusive just as sexually activity between humans can be abusive.

Bess says:

07:57am | 20/04/11

@Outraged. There are many lesbians out there who are politically opposed to the institution of marriage. I don’t understand the desire to assimilate to the heterosexual institutions of marriage, particularly as a lesbian woman. However, I do understand the ‘equality’ argument in light of the fact that financial and legal benefits for couples are often tied to that particular institution.

Matt says:

09:39am | 20/04/11

What an utterly stupid comment… Do you ever stop to wonder why you aren’t discriminated against?  The population didn’t wake up all together one day and think ‘I might stop discriminating against homosexuals today’... Many people have fought for years before your ‘pc’ nineties, been bashed and harrassed for years so you could walk through society as a gay man and not be discriminated against.  Perhaps you should look up The Stonewall Riots and educate yourself a bit.. Your comment is beyond pathetic and you should be ashamed of yourself.  If you are happy living as a second class citizen, not having the rights afforded others then keep it to yourself, other people may not want to marry either, but we DO want equal rights - which is fair.

AdamC says:

10:51am | 20/04/11

Matt, you are contradicting yourself.

Yes, the gay activists of yesteryear fought hard for equality and an end to discrimination. These goals have largely been achieved. Yet, apparently I am still a ‘second class citizen’. You, like many activists, are trying to have your cake (we have achieved so much) and eat it too (we’re still a persecuted minority).

At some point, people have to decide that they are satisfied with the progress that has been made. The Stonewall rioters you cited were not protesting for gay marriage. Indeed, many of those rioters would probably not even have endorsed the notion of gay marriage.

You couldn’t be a better illustration of my point, Matt.

Hamish says:

12:22pm | 20/04/11

Are you a bit confused Matt? Either you’re discriminated against or you’re not. You can’t on the one hand ask ‘have you ever wondered why you’re not discriminated against’ and then on the other argue you’re still ‘second-class citizens’. You’re going to have to pick one. It’s actually very refreshing seeing people who are members of minorities reject the prevailing victimhood narrative. It displays an ability to rise above the west’s current obsession with persecution fantasies which have become the new black for the soft-left.

Anthony says:

08:32pm | 19/04/11

So you’ve wondered about it but it appears that you’ve never done any research into it in order to understand it. I know that because you describe the attitude of religion (I’m presuming Christianity here) towards homosexuality as ‘hateful’. As an educated Christian man I can tell you that your premise is flawed. I suggest ‘Christianity explained’ or ‘Alpha’ if you’re truly interested but I suspect that you don’t really want to jump down that rabbit hole and you’d prefer to hold your false view of Christianity.

Further, I like the irony in your position that someone who is opposed to gay marriage has a ‘selfish’ moral belief. Why do you not characterise the ‘moral belief’ of the pro gay marriage people as ‘selfish’ also. After all, it’s a ‘moral belief’ too and if we’re talking relativism, why is one better than the other. If it’s OK for someone to hold a ‘moral belief’ that is pro gay marriage and not be selfish then it’s OK for someone to hold a moral belief that is anti gay marriage and also not be selfish.

No name says:

07:22pm | 20/04/11

I totally agree with Anthony here. I would love Carlos to explain to me why (I am a christian and educated - lawyer) I am hateful? Is it because I hold the belief that gay marriage should not be allowed? Does that make a person hateful? Whats the criteria for being hateful? I don’t walk around bashing gays or teasing them, in fact I have gay friends who I help out when they need help. Does this sound like a hateful person?

Lauren says:

05:02pm | 19/04/11

If you can’t see the attraction, then I’m sorry to tell you this but you may be a heterosexual.
Like, duh.

Aitch says:

05:16pm | 19/04/11

Maybe you’re not gay, genius.

nossy says:

07:40pm | 19/04/11

@Laurn and Aitch - well despite your highly “informative” answers I am still none the wiser as to what another man finds attractive about another mans hairy smelly butt !  haahahhhhhhhhhhh

bec says:

06:16am | 20/04/11

Perhaps then you have no idea what we ladies like about the dudes…

Luce says:

09:37pm | 19/04/11

Arnold, part of the issue is that it shouldn’t be the state, or anyone else’s choice. It doesn’t affect anyone else’s lives if gays are allowed to marry, so why stop them? I know some people people feel uncomfortable with the idea, but if we allowed discomfort to be a valid reason for preventing basic rights, we’d still be living in the 1800s.

Joeyjoejoejnr says:

10:05pm | 19/04/11

Luce, at the risk of repetitiveness… Is it the right of the state or anyone else to stop a brother and sister of appropriate age from marrying? Is it the right of the state or anyone else to stop someone marrying multiple partners?
I admit, I might be missing something here and am open to correction. But if you answer that the above groups should be allowed to married then we are talking a major redefinition of what marriage is and therefore it needs significant debate.
If you answer that the above mentioned groups shouldn’t be allowed to marry - Why? because they make you uncomfortable?

Markus says:

04:42pm | 19/04/11

Speaking of doing your research, did you seriously just suggest that all male adolescent suicide is a result of religious oppression of homosexuals?

fairsfair says:

04:49pm | 19/04/11

Hypocrite. If you fail to even realise the inherent hypocricy of your own views, how do you expect to followers of the so called “sky gods” to listen to what you have to say? How do you expect to implement change when the entire premise of your argument is simply the polar attack of the so called “perjudice” that you are seeking to overcome.

It is like two children wearing earmuffs screaming at each other. I have no issue with the issue at hand being discussed, but if it is going to be repetetive shit slinging for all eternity - I’ll pass thanks.

Anthony says:

08:37pm | 19/04/11

So let me understand this correctly. Apparently religious oppression of homosexuals is resulting young homosexual people committing suicide. But you ridiculing religious people’s beliefs (Sky gods) and labelling them bigots isn’t an example of oppressive type behaviour at all. Pots and kettles spring to mind. Looks like hypocrites aren’t just found in churches!

Two Mummies says:

04:47pm | 19/04/11

So by your reckoning my daughter should have to hide the fact that she has two mums on the off chance that some kid will be offended? So at what age do you think she should be allowed to acknowledge her family?

Your kid says ‘oh yuck’ because you and a homophobic society have taught him that reaction.

AdamC says:

04:57pm | 19/04/11

Sheesh, Reggieman, you sound a little closed-minded.

I am sure your son will get over it.

Brendan says:

05:02pm | 19/04/11

Can you please censor every picture of men and women kissing. I’m gay and I find it disgusting. And you for that matter.

Voxpop says:

05:07pm | 19/04/11

Reggieman it all depends on age and parenting…
Age - my nephew says “oh yuck” when he sees hetero’s kissing he’s young enough to think kissing girls is gross.
Parenting - so what type of parent will you choose to be… the kind that rigidly projects his views onto the kid and stifles understanding or will you choose to educate compassionately and give your child the tools to understand and make their own assumptions which can change given time and life experience.

Syl says:

05:11pm | 19/04/11

Two Mummies

“Your kid says ‘oh yuck’ because you and a homophobic society have taught him that reaction. “

I disagree.  Being a heterosexual male with no interest in gay sex the picture makes me think “oh yuck” as well.  This is because for me, it is undesirable, I do not wish to kiss another guy, and pictures of it remind me of that.
It does not make me homophobic (have a look at my previous posts in MANY gay articles on the punch), it simply makes the subject matter distasteful for me because I cannot relate to it.  Much the same way as I would think “Oh yuck” if it was an obese skinhead woman and man kissing.

I don’t, however, believe it should be censored, or hidden from our children.  Nobody has the right not to be offended and children have to learn that the world is made of up of many different people with different ideas and lifestyles and you can’t understand or relate to them all.

Eliza says:

05:59pm | 19/04/11

I’ve always liked seeing two guys make out… especially if they’re hot

Phil says:

06:52pm | 19/04/11

@Two Mummies
Well actually she has a biological mother and another mother who looks after here and probably cares about her as much as you do, but chances are she also has a dad as well you (and nature) haven’t got around the fact us blokes are still needed for some things.

But its good to see your willing to tell others how they should raise their children if it doesn’t sit right with you. Because thats your right isnt it?
This is part of the whole problem, you refuse to accept anyone elses views on the whole gay thing and they cant always accept everything you have to say. 
There has to be someone who is “wrong” and neither side want to give in that ground.

EMM says:

09:35pm | 19/04/11

Two Mummies - I don’t care if your kids never acknowledge their family. Your problem, not ours.

kate says:

05:34pm | 21/04/11

“old enough to understand”

What’s to understand?  Two grown-ups love each other and kiss.  How is that any more offensive that the millions of images of heterosexual couples we see every day.

Dawson says:

06:07pm | 19/04/11

Well I guess it depends your definition of “family”. Each to their own, I guess.
And I think it kinda is a homophobic society that says yuck. I mean if you really had no problem with homosexuals, then seeing them kiss shouldn’t force that reaction - unless of course you do the same to heterosexual couples.
Though you may have a point. Perhaps it isn’t a homophobic society persay which stipulates such a reaction… Instead, it’s a society that drills into you from birth the idea that boys fall in love with girls (and vice versa), and they and ONLY they kiss and mary. In other words, not homophobia, but a society which enforces that heterosexuality is the only normal way to be.

I mean… you yourself kind of just proved that. “He knows what is NORMAL and what is ‘yucky’”. Now THAT is a hompophobic statement. Awkies that you’re telling yourself otherwise, really.

Matt says:

07:09pm | 19/04/11

Reggieman, thankfully, your son is going to grow up in a world far more accepting and tolerant than the one you did.  Cretaceous views like yours, and the stone-cold arrogance of comments like “I’m not homophobic but gay is yucky” are already on their way out…

Kate says:

11:41pm | 19/04/11

Pretty sure I thought boys and kissing were “yucky” when I was a young girl and I certainly changed my mind about that one. I hope your son does too.

baal says:

01:28pm | 20/04/11

@Reggieman there is a chance, an actually chance that one day your son will go, actually kissing a guy is not so bad. What will you do if he is queer. It is a possibility you have no control over Reggieman.
I am in my late twenties and I still think kissing a guy is kinda yucky.
This causes some friction when the guys I sleep with want to make out but I tell them I only kiss girls.
Imprinting is hard to overcome.
Also this discussion seems to as always ignore us bisexual people and guys we are a lot more than 2% and in general are not visible because most bi and many gays not not act remotely gay until you get them alone.

Joeyjoejoejnr says:

05:48pm | 19/04/11

Should we include (just while we are at it) and accept those that want to marry their brother or sister? or those that want to marry more than one partner or heck about those with blow up dolls etc.
I mean, why just accept and include the gays… is that a bit unaccepting of other minorities?
I’d prefer we simply didn’t rub out the line in the sand until we have certainty on who is going to re-draw it, where and why

El says:

08:12pm | 19/04/11

Joeyjoejoejnr, I sincerely feel sorry for you and your dull life if you feel the need to be that offensively provocative as to liken homosexuality to incest purely to fuel hateful dialouge. I choose to believe it was your boredom with your unhappy life that motivated your comment rather than your narrow-mindedness, as I refuse to believe that someone who is literate enough to read this article and write a response could have such a poorly formed, irrational argument.

Joeyjoejoejnr says:

09:15pm | 19/04/11

El, so why in your world is Homosexuality ok and incest not??? Consent? A brother and sister over a certain age can give consent right? Is it because it is immoral? Why? who decides what is moral and why is it ok for you to say it is not right but not ok for me to say that homosexuality is not right?
Perhaps I am not intelligent enough to understand this… help me understand please

AliceC says:

09:24am | 20/04/11

@Joeyjoejoejnr

Were you enducated on genetics in school? If nto, that could be the reason for your confusion.

Muttley says:

10:46am | 20/04/11

El, read the threads above. The usual argument pops up repeatedly. People should be able to do what they like if it doesnt affect anyone else. You may not like Joeys comparison, but it uses the same logic.

Ben81 says:

08:24pm | 19/04/11

Shane for brevity you can just say “no homo” after everything you say that you think sounds a bit sus.

Dawson says:

05:56pm | 19/04/11

I agree totally. I’ll profess to watching Family Guy ritually, and though I know that it’s supposed to act as a “witty reflection of modern American society”, the overt anti-semitism that pops up every few episodes is totally… shocking. I just don’t understand it.

Phil says:

07:15pm | 19/04/11

I very much doubt the “majority of Australians are religious” most may say they had a catholic or Christian upbringing but how many would be practising and base their views on this? very few.
Its a pretty poor attempt to lay blame on religion rather than people and what they decide to believe or think about others, just the same as you are happy to rattle off your view on how all religious people must be “close minded religious scumbags who are so ignorant” and in the same breath you are basically saying that others cant have a view that is different to yours otherwise its wrong.

Amelia says:

06:00pm | 19/04/11

That’s because you’re deluded into thinking that maybe, just maybe, one day, one of those “gyrls who like gyrls” will turn to your strong, muscle-ridden arms, in search of sex.
Face it, heterosexual guys, we’re not interested!

michael j says:

07:15pm | 19/04/11

Gee it feels really weird talking about my homosexual experiences on an open forum ,needless to say they were as a younger man,but he cheated once to often so i told him to f—off,,fell in love with a lady who turned out to be worse then he was so she went to,,after 15 yrs of wed and 3 children,,all grown up ??
To say i am a bit to easy going at times is an understatement ,,but i do not understand gays wanting to wed in a church,or mosque ,,when they have already won so many rights ,,yes i remember times when gays had their guts kicked in ,thrown in a cell and told to leave town,,
for mine is the old don’t ask,,don’t tell,,it’s none of your fu—ing business
old style was good,,don’t try to make out you are some other type of culture that makes you special,,your’e not,,as for that photo,,it’s not even an open mouth kiss,,seen more action in a rugby scrum,,,,
best thing to happen to gay rights lately was taking 3 hours of the Sydney festival off tv,,,,,,,,,

Ben81 says:

08:21pm | 19/04/11

It’s ok Amelia we’re happy to just sit in the corner and watch

Erin says:

06:52pm | 19/04/11

“... look at history and say quite rightfully that any society which has promoted homosexuality has been destroyed.. or destroyed itself…”

I would just like to point out that any society that has promoted heterosexuality has been destroyed or destroyed itself. Such is the way of civilisation.

Neil H says:

12:16am | 20/04/11

“We need a new word, for people who don’t fear, and who don’t hate gays. Who just think it’s wrong and unnatural, and who look at history and say quite rightfully that any society which has promoted homosexuality has been destroyed.. or destroyed itself, sooner rather than later.”

That sounds like fear to me.

Joeyjoejoejnr says:

09:08pm | 19/04/11

Homosexuals can’t vote??? What rights are they missing?

na-na says:

11:11pm | 19/04/11

ummm, the right to marry? Did you forget the article this discussion is about?

Joeyjoejoejnr says:

06:31am | 20/04/11

On marriage we have the same rights??? I can’t marry a man just as a homosexual can’t, I can’t marry my sister, just as a homosexual can’t, I can’t marry more than one partner, just as a homosexual can’t. We all have the same rights you see… what we are debating is how we define marriage

Eliza Cussen says:

08:52pm | 19/04/11

Hi Servaas, thanks for your comments. I don’t think love is for me or anyone to define. Marriage is one form of expression of love which I believe should be available to anyone who wants it. If you read the final paragraph, I argue that relationships outside the marriage paradigm (such as my own) are just as valid. The real issue here is legislation discriminating against people on the basis of the sexuality. I find this at odds with a democratic and free society. Does that answer your questions?

marley says:

08:54pm | 19/04/11

Well, by your logic, there should be no marriages at all. If homosexuals can love one another without marriage, then so can heterosexuals, so there’s no actual need for such an institution as marriage.  There shouldn’t be any legal marriage at all, by your rules.

Servaas says:

11:31pm | 20/04/11

Eliza, thanks for the reply.

I believe we are capable of defining love and I understand the essence of it means to ‘value’ that thing (person, money to some even) which you ‘love’. All actions towards and with regards to that thing will be done according to the value you place on it. That is in short.

Marley, I don’t believe there shouldn’t be any marriages, only that government need not recognise any at all - if that was what you meant then yes, not heterosexual, not homosexual, not inter-species, not anything. A good government will acknowledge those which benefit the nation over whom they govern by providing them with special priviledges and encouraging it. Any decent, secular government will go purely on the stats on not let any group force them to make choices. Such a government will see that the classic family structure of one mom, one dad and their own biological kids brings forth the healthiest society. Obviously they must also make provision and care best for orphans and exceptional cases.

To answer to Eliza’s response as well, I believe not all discrimination is bad and that government should practice it at times - even in a free, democratic state. Government recognition is not necessary for two or more people to love eachother, whichever way they might define that love. Heterosexuals do not need government to recognise their relationship but I believe history has shown us that any wise government will recognise them.

mel says:

08:45pm | 23/04/11

Oh Servaas, you do not have much idea about a free and fair society, do you?

You have this stupid argument about governments discriminating for relationships that “benefit the nation over whom they govern by providing them with special priviledges [sic] and encouraging it”. You have used this argument in other articles and have never really explained why a government should favour one type of family over any other permutation (and there are many) and why you have decided that whole groups of australians should face discrimination. Do you have any rational explanation, at all, or do you just like being a religious bigot?

Servaas says:

07:28pm | 25/04/11

Well, if you have been reading everything I said everywhere you should have seen my arguments as well: the only reason for acknowledging marriage is for the sake of children growing up in it and the safest plce for them to grow up in is one with a mom and dad - that is what research shows anyway but feel free to ignore it for te sake of pushing your agenda.

If that makes me a religious bigot then call me that if name calling is what you’re in to.

joeyjoejoejnr says:

09:04pm | 19/04/11

Just because you want to believe that, doesn’t it make fact pal

Reggieman says:

09:12pm | 19/04/11

Garbage. Complete and utter garbage. I am offended because it is stomach churning.

Fact

HappyCynic says:

09:09am | 20/04/11

I kinda agree with Jason

Those who are the most outspoken about gay people and gay rights and those who are the most uncomfortable about it are usually gay themselves but wish they weren’t.

It’s kind of like the ex-smoker.  Noone hates smokers more than the ex-smoker, and noone hates gay people more than those who are too afraid to come out of the closet.

jade (the other one) says:

07:19am | 20/04/11

That very impression of a “normal” family is part of what has caused children living in atypical family arrangements to have severe issues in relation to adjustment. Children living in single parent households, foster care, living with a relative other than their parents, and children living in households with homosexual parents all experience problems in relation to feeling isolated and ostracised.

This can lead to higher rates of suicide, children staying in abusive relationships later in life to hold onto the “normal” family that they are told by society they should have, higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, and less opportunity.

I found this idea that my family was somehow more normal than everyone else’s around me because books and TV told me it was more confusing to me. I grew up in an area where I had one of the few families with two parents who were both my biological parents.  And yet, when I saw families reflected on television, movies and in books, I still felt some of the isolation as I am an only child. I never saw only-child families reflected in society, and it caused me to feel that there was something wrong with my family.

Promoting outdated, anachronistic ideas of the normal family simply damage children of all family types and are a pathetic attempt to hold onto a past that never was.

NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

09:32pm | 22/04/11

Hi Jade,

I just wanted to say that I do not have a problem with homosexual relationships at all!!  The idea of a normal family is usually determined by the very society we live in!!  Like we have discussed earlier who is say that who makes a better parent??  However, I was talking about the very young who are very impressionable, and may have a problem with all the mixed messages out there in the real world.

There are a lot of exceptions to the rule that, single parents and only children do not succeed at all.  I come from such a background as well as proud to say that with all the problems that may come with single parent families, it has only made me more mature to have a mother who was working constantly trying to bring up two kids on her own!! 

There are dysfunctional and families all over the world, but lets face it we can not blame all the negative things on our childhood.  Lets all grow up as well as face reality that our world is ever changing & challenging to say the least!! I truly believe that our very own life experiences really make us who we are!!

Cloud Strife says:

11:51am | 20/04/11

You know many, many straight people do anal too, right?

Ash says:

01:32pm | 20/04/11

Hmmm matey sex and love are not the same thing. Plus you can also fit the screw in the the other nut that everyone has. Plus the vagina is also used to give birth to babies so by your logic none of us should be having sex. Whatever floats your boat mate, don’t call people unnatural for something that feels natural to them. We’re all wired differently

Mary says:

01:47pm | 20/04/11

seriously, how deluded are you. The word homophobic is as useless as misandry nowdays. It gets thrown about under any circumstances at the speed of light.

Shane says:

02:16pm | 20/04/11

@Mary Are the words ignorant, intolerant and bigoted easier for you to swallow?

@Cloud Strife Very true.  Not 2 days ago my boss was talking with someone, was trying to remember the words to a song from Evita, randomly pointed at me and said I must know since I’m gay.  Just for the record - I like my punk rock hah.

Amanda says:

01:09pm | 21/04/11

I think the entire point for many lesbians is that we don’t buy into gender roles. We relate to each other as human beings, not one-dimensional characters from a heterosexual script.

Daniel says:

06:32pm | 20/04/11

Sounds like homophobia to me.

Mark says:

01:14pm | 21/04/11

There’s nothing more fun than not discriminating someone but threatening unspecified violence if they show the slightest amount of interest.

Very grown up too.

Melanie says:

10:47pm | 21/04/11

I think there’s a big difference between the idea of incestuous marriage and homosexual marriage. It’s just wrong to be in an intimate relationship with your relatives, whether you’re gay or straight. Like it’s wrong to be in an intimate relationship with an animal or a child. Gay and lesbian relationships don’t fit into that unhealthy, socially unacceptable category. At least not to reasonable people.

Akos says:

01:31pm | 22/04/11

Hi Melanie,

Thanks for your thoughts! I’m guessing that a lot of commenter’s would agree with you, in that you feel that there’s a REAL difference between incestuous marriage and homosexual marriage.

Although, if I may, it seems that your basis for rejecting the views of incestuous marriage (as put forward by marriage-equality.blogspot.com) are as follows:

1) It is wrong to be in an incestuous marriage for the following reasons:

a) It is unhealthy;

b) It is socially unacceptable.

(BTW, I don’t disagree with you about the wrongfulness of incestuous marriage - let me make that clear now! .

In response to a)

What do you mean by ‘unhealthy’?
Emotionally? Physically? What data do you have to back up your assertion? (I’m sure there’s lot’s out there).

A research paper that I (partly) read, carried out by a Gay and Lesbian group, found that men involved in regular gay sex had instances of bowel cancer (or some related form of cancer) that was 3000% (i.e. 30 times) higher than those of non-gay men. (If you want, I’ll try and post the link when I get it).

Based on that research, one could also make the physically ‘unhealthy’ argument for (male) homosexuality.

and in response to b)

We only need look at some of the responses in the above comments to see how socially unacceptable homosexuality has been in the past. Indeed, up until 40 years ago or so, at least in Tasmania, people were being prosecuted for being homosexual.
Yet, the argument put forward by proponents of homosexuality is that society has moved on: we are much more ‘tolerant’, ‘progressive’, and ‘enlightened’ than in those dark, conservative days.

Unless you see societal norms as fixed and absolute (a difficult argument to make in light of recent changes to society’s view of homosexuality), then the people behind marriage-equality.blogspot.com can make EXACTLY the same argument about adult, consensual incest (and incestual marriage).

Sorry, they ARE already making the same arguments about adult consensual incestual relationships (and incestual marriage).
I.e. we just need to ‘progress’, and ‘advance’ further in our ‘tolerance’ of those with sexual norms different to our own.

After all, who are we to force our (bigoted) views onto others?

And then there’s the effective privatization of sexual ethics (seen in earlier comments like: ‘who are we to judge what other (consenting) people do between the sheets - it’s none of our business!!!’).

With the above building blocks in place (society’s norms are not absolute, and often ‘wrong’; the privatization of sexual ethics), it seems that the path has been laid for groups like the marriage-equality.blogspot.com to simply harness the logic of the arguments that made homosexuality acceptable and legal, and push to gain acceptance of their views (using those exact same arguments).

And if we do go down the path of (radically) redefining marriage to allow same-sex marriage, will it not give more ammo to those pushing for an even more radical redefinition of marriage (as per the quote in my original post)?

I think so too.

(Lest you think I’m scaremongering, see what’s happening in Switzerland: just google ‘Switzerland + Incest law’ (for some reason they wouldn’t allow me to put the link here, even though it was to the telegraph.co.uk site (!))
Interested to hear people’s responses.

(P.S. I also think it’s wrong to be in an intimate relationship with an animal and a child - but these people are talking about adult, consensual relationships, not relationships with minors).

Melanie says:

02:29pm | 23/04/11

The health problems associated with incestuous couples reproducing are well known. Also, most people have a natural aversion to incest and there are theories which suggest that there may be a biological basis for that. I just Googled ‘incest taboo biology ethics’ etc. because I remember reading research which suggests that there may be a biological, evolutionary basis to ethics and morality to some extent. You yourself admit that you don’t support incestuous relationships and I think you would be hard pressed to explain why. You just instinctually know that it’s wrong, yes?

Suffice to say, incest is socially unacceptable AND illegal in most places at this point in time and judging by our seemingly natural aversion to it, I have no reason to think that that will change in the future. I don’t buy into the ‘slippery slope’ argument that allowing homosexual marriage will lead us to opening up marriage to any and all ‘sexualities’, however immoral, illegal and unnatural they are. Just because we approve of one thing, doesn’t mean anything and everything will be approved. Legislators take each issue on its merits. That’s what they’re trained to do. Which is my point. I don’t associate gay and lesbian sexuality with things like incest and beastiality. I don’t see the connection. It’s completely irrelevant and I think legislators and most reasonable people can also see that. This also relates to your point about morality changing over time. Some things are just wrong. Slavery and racism were/are wrong and attitudes changed as we became more enlightened. It’s the same for homophobia. I don’t think beastiality or incest fall into those categories so any arguments that we’re ‘opening up the floodgates’ are irrelevant.

As to your arguments about health and sexuality, you could argue that heterosexuality is dangerous for women because women are more susceptible to STD’s and HIV/AIDS due to their biology. They’re also put at risk of injury and death every time they get pregnant. On that basis, you could argue that lesbian sexuality is the most healthy sexuality for women. We can rationalise anything according to our biases.