I know many of you would assume after my glowing endorsement of Ms Gillard and the opportunity she represents to shape a more inclusive socio-political culture that I’d be the first to denounce her opposition to gay marriage. Well, you’d be wrong.

In fact, I don’t consider the ‘right’ to marry part of any socially progressive agenda and so I say Julia is correct on this issue, but for the wrong reasons.

I guess I’ve always had a romantic, almost Wildean view of homosexuals as somehow more evolved than the rest of us. We all know deep down that stereotypes are true. So you know I’m right when I say that most gays are inherently more civilized and cultured, and are generally superior citizens than the rest of us.

For one, you don’t see them invading the Western suburbs for a bit of straight bashing at the local RSL. Many of them are even welcoming to the yobbos who come to their annual parade for a perv.

And they generally have a sense of community and solidarity that Pauline Hanson would be proud of. Didn’t they start the whole ribbon craze with their AIDS activism? (OK, that’s pretty annoying)

So why, after establishing themselves as a community of committed social progressives, do they want to go and spoil it all by having the State – and God forbid, the Church - authorise their private relationships?

It simply makes no sense. Anyone who has even a cursory understanding of the historical roots of marriage knows that, by its very nature, it’s an anachronistic religious and therefore necessarily heterosexist institution set up for the benefit of only one type of citizen: heterosexual men (that’s why research shows married men live longer than their unwed counterparts).

It helped to promote the traditional socio-political aims of the Church and the State by guaranteeing the separation of the private and public sphere through the ideal of the nuclear family which involved consigning women to the former where they and their children, in law and in practice, were considered the property of men. And it worked as long as women remained economically dependent on their husbands, precisely by being denied access to said public sphere.

As a result, it can’t be legitimately extended to those intrinsically excluded from it just because minority rights are cool. So I reckon after all the time and effort us chicks have spent exposing the tradition for the oppressive, bourgeois – and most significantly, inequitable - con it is that it’s absurd to now campaign to resurrect it for a particular group. Let the archaic institution die the natural death it looks to be doing as women become more emancipated from the private sphere.

I say to homosexuals: use your considerable powers of reason – you know, the ones that allowed you to come out of the closest by accepting that it’s ok to break with banal social conventions such as being heterosexual – and get over the desire to conform. I know you say it’s about equal rights, but these days the right to get married is like the right to wear a beige cardigan – and not in an ironic way.

And to Julia I say, come on, be a true social progressive and do away with state interference in consensual private relationships of any type. Let grown-ups decide what they want to do in their bedrooms and which type of social relations they want to pursue.

And as a non-believer and formerly proud feminist, don’t legitimise practices that reinforce the patriarchal ideology of right-wing Christian dogma – high-and-mighty, hypocritical, ‘family values’ rubbish that less and less people are falling for these days anyway.

In the meantime, I’m going to proudly live in ‘sin’ so long as being gay is considered one.

Most commented

55 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Ripa says:

      06:46am | 05/07/10

      *hugs* dont hate anyone, people of all faith have big hearts and a lot of love to give, marriage is a modern ceremony of love and commitment, making it religious and saying it is outdated is wrong, you yourself as a non believer should know, thousands of years ago we were all knuckle dragging animals it is only through experience and invention we realise that the family is a strong unit, for love for support for anything you need, its not just Christians that know this it is all the religions.
      Carrie you should build your own family, “self proclaimed sinner or not” i think you will find that within western society, there is more understanding and love than anywhere else on the planet.

    • Fred De Nile says:

      07:15pm | 05/07/10

      Super! Finally we know who has exclusive access to ‘understanding and love’! That on e had been bothering nme for some time. So: christians have the ‘morals’, the ‘liberal’ party has the ‘loyalty’ and the ‘western world’ has the ‘understanding and love’. Neat!

    • Jeremy says:

      07:20am | 05/07/10

      It’s not about asking the State for “authorisation”. It’s about not being discriminated against.

      So long as we have marriage laws (and no-one is seriously proposing to remove them), they should apply equally to all Australians, gay or straight. The status quo tells gay people that they are second-class citizens - it’s indefensible.

      Whether or not you personally like the idea of marriage - and I’d suggest that modern marriage doesn’t have to be constrained by the religious or oppressive traditions of the past - is irrelevant. Whether or not that gay couple you know want to get married is irrelevant.

      It is entirely about equality before the law.

      Gay people should have exactly the same rights as the rest of us. That is not the case at present. It should be.

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:07am | 05/07/10

      “The status quo tells gay people that they are second-class citizens - it’s indefensible.”

      Jeremy’s hit the nail on the head.  One analogy I’ve used (and tell me if you think it’s faulty) is this:
      It’s the 1960s, and the states, territories and feds had declared that indigenous Aussies won’t get the vote per se, but would be given ‘Indigenous Representation Entitlements’.  They’d be worth the same as a white vote, but there’d be a separate queue at the ballot, and they’d come in a different colour.  The powers that be declare that black people can’t have a ‘vote’, since its so steeped in white tradition, and it would upset the old folks. 
      If you think that sounds wrong, then the ‘near enough is good enough’ argument shouldn’t hold water.

    • Ants Inc. says:

      01:21pm | 05/07/10

      It seems entirely anachronistic to me, for gay people to wish to ‘buy into’ an institution which is characterised historically by seeking the ‘permission’ of both the church and the state to take part in a union of the private lives of two individuals. I’m stunned that anyone sees that as a ‘right’. Fight for your legal rights, for sure, but not for the right to engage with archaic institutions and practices.

    • Hilly Bill says:

      01:50pm | 05/07/10

      Ants Inc. - why can’t you just say “old fashioned” like the rest of us? Sure you have 10% of yours words over 10 characters long, but in the end your average is 4 letter words, just like us cussing folk. I could rewite your entire reply to the autor in 1 word, “Agreed”.

    • Ants Inc. says:

      07:35pm | 05/07/10

      @Hill Billy,

      thanks for your ongoing interest in my work, not to mention your pithy, insightful critque of the actual ARTICLE. BTW, nobody (except US southern red-necks) actually uses the word ‘cussing’ in this counrty, cow poke.

    • Ants Inc. says:

      07:40pm | 05/07/10

      @Hill Billy,

      Oh! And you REALLY need a proper hobby, aside from counting characters in other people’s posts, Rain Man. How ‘bout tabacc spittin’ or maybe hog callin’, Jethro?

    • DD Ball says:

      07:26am | 05/07/10

      According to the anglican church, marriage is legalized sex. The practicality is that it also secures inheritance rights, but what does that matter if you plan to live forever, or leave nothing to anyone beyond debts? I don’t think those appalling sex acts between church members and altar boys are recognized as marriage, after all, what is the fun in doing something legal? It isn’t prudish to wish to be married. It is an act of faith for a religious couple. I don’t think it means anything beyond the mere symbolic for those without faith.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      08:41am | 05/07/10

      DD Ball :  Well , that’s a rather oversimplified statement . The Anglican Church believes that children should be within legal marriage and recognises that the reality of marriage is procreation within a legal committment by a man and a woman.
      Your reference to apalling sex acts perpetrated on Altar boys by Church members is hardly relevant to the subject . Sexual attacks on kids isn’t confined to kids in a church setting , but is emphasised *  because * it is * in * a church setting. These attacks occurr in every sphere of society and are just as abhorrent.

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      8

    • Liz says:

      09:45am | 05/07/10

      Hope we’re not seeing the usual confusion between paedophiles and homosexuals here?  Re those without faith and marriage you are entirely wrong to make that assumption.Heaven forbid that you are being holier than thou!
      As for the writer of this piece she sounds as if she working up to be a polies speech writer.

    • Richard says:

      08:20am | 05/07/10

      You say that marriage is “set up for the benefit of only one type of citizen: heterosexual men”, yet I know some authorities that would persuasively argue that men are instinctively and biologically polygamous, and that marriage (in the form that we know it) is a matriarchal institution engineered to protect women! It is much more difficult to bear, give birth, raise, sustain and teach a child without the help of a father who might quite happily rather remain free to sow wild oats willy-nilly. Feminists who would prefer to live without a balancing yang influence in their lives better be careful they don’t get what they ask for, because women (who have a biological clock tick tick ticking the whole time) might live to regret the choices of their 20’s and 30’s.

    • DJ says:

      11:08am | 05/07/10

      Richard - Feminism is a fairly new idea, Marriage has been around for centuries and it was very discriminating against women, read up on history

    • Richard says:

      11:59am | 05/07/10

      DJ I am very well read up on history and I don’t buy that for one second. Of course no marriage is perfect, but on the whole, in a historical context, women benefited greatly from this institution: protection from harm, provided for by the man bringing home the bacon, procreation in a safe supportive and stable environment. I don’t buy this new feminist dogma that women were repressed merely because they historically had different roles in society than men. The happiest women I know are the ones in a loving marriage with a strong man who takes leadership of his family (including his happy wife).

    • malheureuxmaus says:

      01:06pm | 05/07/10

      ‘marriage (in the form that we know it) is a matriarchal institution engineered to protect women!’
      and perhaps more persuasively argued that marriage ‘ensured’ a man knew who his children were, thereby protecting his wealth and/or lineage.
      I think the evidence weighs heavily in favour of this reading, rather than the one advanced by yourself, Richard.

    • Ants Inc. says:

      01:15pm | 05/07/10

      @Richard,

      anyway, all christian-fundamentalist-nonsense aside, do you think women (and children) actually ‘benefitted’ from being regarded as the ‘property’ of the ‘man of the house’? Perhaps you could read some history other than that which simply confirms your pre-conceived ideas? How do you explain that rape in marrige wasn’t recognised as a crime until 1974, if women weren’t legally regarded as the ‘property’ of their husbands?

    • T.Chong says:

      02:38pm | 05/07/10

      Ants Inc : agree the idea of women being treated badly has no excuse, but relying on an events prior to 1974 ( over a third of a century ago ) in order to enable the donning of the cloak of martydom is no longer relavant.
      Why not still decry about white women not being given the vote until a century ago as well?

    • Paul Horn says:

      05:57pm | 05/07/10

      Not necesarily malheureuxmaus as marriage did or does not stop a woman doing the wild thing with a male that is not her husband. What marriage did do was ensure that her child would be afforded the full protection and support of her foolish husband. Look around you my friend there are many many stupid men raising children that are not biologically their own.

      And er DJ you should do your own reading mate. The Socialist Bolsheviks outlawed marriage in preference to communal style living. Divorce was made extremely easy as a means of liberating women from the oppressive yoke of the bourgeois capitalist system. A man or woman need not even attend court, a simple statement was all that was needed to the relevant Government authority. Do you know what happened. Millions of peasant women were left bereft, living in total poverty as males could simply walk away to pursue further amorous adventures. Not unlike todays society the men were more highly skilled and more employable. Stalin eventually had to repeal this idiotic complete socialist failure as the state was completely unable to provide for millions of displaced children. He made divorce much harder, instituted nuclear family laws, discouraged homosexual behaviour all to the disgust and criticism of Trotsky.   

      The experiment has been tried before and tried a complete failure. My question is if we are to rid ourselves of marriage completely which is what we have almost accomplished anyway what do we replace it with? Compulsorty homosexuality? Complete state care of children? We have that already at massive cost to the public purse!! What do feminists propose apart from the complete destruction of any form of sexual relationship between men and women?

    • Eric says:

      06:01pm | 05/07/10

      Women and children benefited greatly from the institution of marriage, because it harnessed the intelligence and strength of the male for the good of others. Indeed, the advanced liberal society we have today is largely a product of many centuries of marriage.

      However, over the last few decades, Western countries have transformed marriage into a trap for men, which simply exploits them without offering any compensation. Hence we will see increasing numbers of men deserting society, and much disintegration. This process is well advanced in black ghettoes of the US, such as Detroit.

      Expect to see more violence and poverty as the benefits of marriage trickle away.

    • Ants Inc. says:

      07:11pm | 05/07/10

      @T.Chong,

      what ‘cloak of martyrdom’ do you think I am donning? That’s the funny thing about history: it happened some time ago! Events that happened 35 years ago are relatively recent, in the overall span of recorded human history. The fact that women couldn’t vote until 100 years ago is a very good example: that means the change occured in the last 2% of recorded history, or the situation was reversed, for 98% of human history. But your right: it was a ‘long time ago’ and ‘no longer relevant’. Try advancing that arguement within earshot of a ‘holocaust memorial’ and see how much traction you get for your case.

    • Lynnie says:

      08:33am | 05/07/10

      Having been married twice and now divorced twice my belief is that all Marriage Laws be abolished.  All citizens entering into any permanent relationship, business or personal, ought to structure a legal contract between them; in the case of personal contracts, deciding their finances and their children’s care, and matters of inheritance.  This contract can be broken and the parties involved obliged to conform to the contract.  Of course, at any time during this personal relationship, the contract can be legally altered by mutual consent. 

      Outside of this, the partners may have whatever kind of celebration they require - religious ceremony, or just a celebration where they share their commitment with family and friends.  Calling it “Wedding” and therefore colouring it with age-old and inherently odious behaviours and norms is not going to make it work any better.

      Gay folk have every right to fight for their rights within their religion for acceptance and equality.  I wish them well, though I am sad that they feel that they need this approval from these hideously inequitable sects.  But that remains a personal choice - and should not ever impact on the legality of the union, or the protection it provides to all parties.

    • Tim says:

      09:15am | 05/07/10

      Yes,
      the marriage act should be abolished.
      It should be civil unions for all.
      Anyone should be able to go and register a relationship.

      Unfortunately equal legal rights are not the gay lobby’s only agenda.

    • Steven says:

      09:29am | 05/07/10

      So narrow-minded Carrie. “They” are all the mardi gras-attending, inner-city-living, nice, out-there, sophistomacated gays, aren’t they?

      There are no gay bogans.
      There are no gay average guys and girls who couldn’t give a toss what their outfits look like.
      There are no fat gay guys playing computer games all day in their parents’ spare rooms at age 35.
      There are no gay people who play no part in community activities, volunteering, helping neighbours, etc. They’re all “superior citizens.”
      There are no gay racists.
      There are no gays who think the mardi gras is an over-the-top joke which pigeonholes all gay people into the flamboyant stereotype.
      There are no gay moronic idiots.

      What world do you live in Carrie? Talk about idealising the “other.”  Seriously. You’re patronising us with this article. You’re nobody’s spokesman.

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:00am | 05/07/10

      @ Steven

      I agree with all your points, sexuality is sexuality and nothing more.  But I thought Carrie was making a joke (“I guess I’ve always had a romantic, almost Wildean view of homosexuals as somehow more evolved than the rest of us. We all know deep down that stereotypes are true.”) That’s how I interpreted that anyway.

    • Andy says:

      10:14am | 05/07/10

      The “gays shouldn’t get marriage rights because i don’t like marriage” is the WORST of all the arguments against marriage equality (and almost always from women).

      I’d rather read an article by some right winged christian. I can laugh at those.

    • T.Chong says:

      10:28am | 05/07/10

      Carrie, I consider myself as a humanist, equalist- pro gay marriage etc , no problems with just about anything, as long as what you do does not hurt, or expoloit anyone else.
      Being reasonably broad minded, I do take some offence at the tired old cliches about how wonderful LAGs are - BS, human foilbles like everyone else.
      Equally tiresome is the idea that in hetero marriages,( usually the female ) partner, is there to be exploited, subjagated, or any other negative you think of.
      Hetero relationships, (just the same as gay relationships) can be built on mutal love , respect.etc.
      It seems bigotry is not a purely hetero blight.

    • sparkle says:

      10:28am | 05/07/10

      I think this article is sad, and yet not surprising at all.  The disregard for martital vows saddens me.  I am not the “property” of my husband, everything is shared and equal, and I couldn’t think of a better way to live my life.  You say the gays are liberal and open minded, well I think the stereotypes and narrow minded comments you have made in this article don’t back you up.

    • DJ says:

      11:12am | 05/07/10

      She is not saying that NOW you are the property of your husband, read the friggen article, back when marriage was first introduced it was to make chattle out of the wives.

    • sparkle says:

      02:41pm | 05/07/10

      And that’s your most intelligent and helpful comment DJ? Well done.  And whether it’s now or back then, I disagree 100% that marriage was instituted by men to strip away rights/power of women.  Dig a little deeper into the core issues.

    • Amanda says:

      11:24am | 05/07/10

      Well im suprised another gay marriage article on the Punch.

      give it a break .

    • Timmo says:

      05:42pm | 05/07/10

      I agree with Amanda. This is a subject that can’t really be debated fairly, as the points of view that would disagree, would be put down as being homophobic. So see, the whole things a waste of time. There is no hope, it’s a waste of brain space.

    • Lee from WA says:

      11:47am | 05/07/10

      Yes, Carrie, marriage is for the benefit of men, who do live longer than their unwed counterparts. But they also live longer along side their wives who also live longer than their unwed counterparts. But don’t let you know, the truth, get in the way of your bitter diatribe against you know, the world and everyone in it. I’m sure the editors of the Punch love having you around - Just as bitter as Catherine Deveny but at half the price.

    • MaddyQ says:

      12:31pm | 05/07/10

      Lee - I love the way women get labelled ‘bitter’ like it’s some defect of character and not a result of years of oppression and sexual objectivity by the hands of men. I’m bitter. I have good reason. Think a bit deeper about the situation of inequality. Actually you’re from WA. What am I thinking?

    • Lee from WA says:

      01:13pm | 05/07/10

      @Maddy: if Carrie had been a man, my comment would have been no different. And are you saying that Carrie isn’t bitter? Wikitionary has one definition of bitter as hateful or hostile and since that is the only approach Carrie seems to take towards anyone who isn’t her, I thought it was a fair assessment. Bitterness is a character defect, regardless of the cause. Plenty of people have cause to be bitter (including myself) but it is never an excuse for it.

      ‘By the hands of men’ - you make it sound like every man is oppressive and terrible but I have always tried to treat every woman I have come across (especially my wife) fairly, knowing that it is within my power to be domineering, in the same way my wife needs to be careful that she doesn’t become a nagger. I am appalled by any instance of women being mistreated and if I have any say in the situation, I do my darndest to make sure I can change it. I would call myself a feminist if I didn’t think it led to women being more oppressed rather than less.

      In any event, your comments prove that hypocrisy is a virtue amongst the dismissive.

    • Dick says:

      01:19pm | 05/07/10

      MaddyQ, first you complain about being labelled bitter, then you admit you are, in fact, bitter.

      No wonder you’re bitter with an attitude like that.

    • malheureuxmaus says:

      01:33pm | 05/07/10

      Dick, MaddyQ didn’t ‘complain’ about being labelled bitter. She complained about ‘bitter’ being shorthand for a defect of character (present only in women) rather than what it is, an understandable reaction to living in an, at best, sexist and at worse, misogynist society.

      This is not to say that individual men (or women) are necessarily misogynist or sexist - rather that the historical structures of Western society are.

    • Dick says:

      01:57pm | 05/07/10

      Malheur, we don’t live in a misogynist or sexist society. Just because you or Maddy have had one or two bad experiences with men, you shouldn’t project that perrsonal bitterness at society as a whole.

      Hating half the human race is no way to go through life.

    • malheureuxmaus says:

      02:22pm | 05/07/10

      Dick, I haven’t had any bad experiences with men and am not, personally, bitter - my point was that it is understandable that some women are. I’m just a feminist woman who is lucky enough to be surrounded by intelligent, feminist men. Sadly, not all women are this lucky and sadly we see this everywhere, every single day.

    • Carrie Miller says:

      03:00pm | 05/07/10

      @Lee from WA. Wouldn’t you be bitter too if you were damaged goods left on the shelf with nobody to ‘complete’ you like me? Have a heart.

    • Paul Horn says:

      06:19pm | 05/07/10

      @ malheureuxmaus - “... rather than what it is, an understandable reaction to living in an, at best, sexist and at worse, misogynist society.’
      Yes my Grandfather would agree with you but alas he is lying in the bottom of some stinking trench buried in the Somme along with a million other idiotic blokes!!! Many of whom were awarded a little white feather by their fairer counterparts aaluding to their cowardice. But I guess you won’t find that in any lying feminist gender studies course now would you! .
      What a bloody cursed privelige this thing called masculininty is. You get to die earlier, get injured / killed far far more commonly in physically dangerous jobs that no woman would shake her ass at and then get lumbered with the dirty lying misconception that somehow you live a life full of privelige and indulgence.

      We blokes are weird. The Western male is the greatest loser in relationships with women when compared to men of any other culture. Yet white Western woman anjoys far more priveliges, far more rights and self indulgences than any of her her counterparts in Africa, Asia, India, the Middle East etc etc yet she hates the most!!! Why is that??? I am gobsmacked. All rampant bitter feminists are white Western Anglo Saxon or Jewish women!!! Examples are everywhere!

    • Mee (thankfully) not from WA says:

      11:20pm | 05/07/10

      @Lee from WA,

      say what you like about your wife: after all, she’s your property. But don’t call my live-in girlfriend ‘bitter’ because she see’s social convention for the transparent hypocrisy it is.

    • Greek Snake says:

      05:02pm | 06/07/10

      It isn’t misogyny at all. This implies hate for women. While I agree with the institution of marriage in it’s current form, I disagree that it is a trap for women. If anything, the rights of a woman in today’s western society is perhaps at it’s greatest in the family scene.

      Women have every right regarding abortion. Why not? You ask? “It’s their body!” I hear you say…. But wait a minute, was it no the man’s sperm which conceived that child? Will the man not be paying for the rest of his life to support that child? Then why does the choice rest solely with the woman?

      How often do you hear about men getting sole custody of the children in divorce or separation cases?

      How often is the phrase “deadbeat dads” thrown about? Are there no “deadbeat mums”?

      When a man implies that a woman’s primary duty is to care for and raise her children, the world yells “sexism!” but when the Family Court suggests the same thing by handing over the kids to the mother in a majority of cases, there is no such outrage.

      I’m not a misogynist at all, but I appreciate it when a woman knows her place. The same way I laugh at females aspiring to be CEO’s, I laugh at men who aspire to be “stay at home” dads. Why attempt to fill the other gender’s role? What a true case of mistaken identity.

    • Kordez says:

      12:07pm | 05/07/10

      When Carl-Henric Svanberg said “I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies who don’t care. But that is not the case in BP. We care about the small people.” His intention likely differed to the interpretation, he was labelled as patronising to those affected by his large company’s oil spill. Frankly if I were one of these small people, I’d feel mocked and announce a boycott all BP products.
      And Carrie I’m afraid your writing appears to suffer the same. A patronising work with the attempt to devalue the goal most gay activists strive to achieve. I can see the humour in an evolved species practising same sex relations especially if they get to clone their own spawn. It is however easy to interpret it incorrectly.
      If Obama was told during his election campaign that it just isn’t worth the effort to be President, there’s all this crazy peacekeeping, responsibility for nuclear warfare and 260 million ungrateful and unsatisfied fatties, he’d have said “Yes, it, is!” Because just like his old mate Bush, he wanted to do the horizontal folk dance on Air Force One.
      So you see Carrie, even though it may not seem important to you at the moment, one day you’ll realise that same sex marriage will create a better way of life within the gay community. One which involves public acceptance.

    • Grant says:

      12:08pm | 05/07/10

      “view of homosexuals as somehow more evolved than the rest of us.”

      Built a castle on sand, in a swamp, sinking in to sludge while being engulfed by a black hole.

      If you polled a billion gays and a billion straights about their values, there would be no discernable difference.

      There is no recognition that concepts surrounding marriage in modern western society is nothing like a few centuries ago. Even though some jackboot feminists feel men should be punished for what has happened in the past, we don’t live in the past.

      There is no need to justify giving someone a freedom to have something, but you need a damn good reason to deny a freedom. There is no logical reason to deny gays marriage. The arguement “no one should do it because I don’t agree with it” is moronic.

    • SandyPants says:

      02:34pm | 05/07/10

      I can’t be bothered reading through all these arguments.
      So, I certainly don’t think it was seriously meant that any one is more evolved as a stereotype, so it seems rather hypocritical to call someone moronic when you can’t read a bit of sarcasm. or I’m wrong. But this artical does some up my views of a legal state of marriage. What’s the point of ever getting a legal marriage. For anyone? I’m straight, and male, and white, and middle class, and pretty much any of the other priviledged categories, bar religous and extravagantly wealthy and personally I see this kind of institutionalised pillory as not just anachronistic but also draconic.
      What a legal marriage, in my opinion, performs in western society, is a cockeyed and illogical form of what it really should be; bald-faced, open and cold as the court room, child-rearing contracts between any entities. Man and woman get pregnant and decide to keep it, sign a contract indicating an obligation to raise the child. That fairly much represents traditional marriage.
      But obviously in this form, any two participants could take the role and resposibility of the mum and dad (by which i mean, the noise a child makes indicating different carers, almost a linguistic constant).

      Personally I will never participate in a legal marriage until I can marry anyone I like. Facebook marriage is good enough for me.

    • eli says:

      03:41pm | 05/07/10

      It’s all well and good to say that marriage is an outdated tradition blah blah blah wanky bullshit, etc. But as long as it exists at all, I support gay people receiving the right to marriage. It’s discriminatory otherwise.

      Either tear it down for all, or build it up for all. None of this half-assed bullshit.

    • Paul Horn says:

      06:38pm | 05/07/10

      Do you also support polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, necrophilia, animism??? If not how is it that homosexuality can be considered more “moral” than any of these other forms of sexual expression? Who the hell are you to judge what is more moral than any other form of intimacy? Many people have far more successful relaitonships with animals than other human beings. Animals are not judgemental, they are forgiving, loyal, open and there for their owner at all times.  If we can accept homosexual sex as morally legitimate then we can accept that marriage to an animal need not encompass sexual relations at all but still be considered as legitimate. A desire for societal recognition of a relationship that is utterly central to a persons sense of self and emotional well being and to ensure that ample resources are set aside for the “pet” in the event that the human passes on!!!   

      What a deranged circus this society has become. Homosexuality is a disease not unlike any form of cancer. Why would nature invest so much in continuing the species through sexual intercourse and then frustrate that entire purpose by the creatoj of homosexuality. If this premise were not so laughable it would have to be considered utter madness!

    • Rossco McGlashan says:

      04:09pm | 05/07/10

      Does this mean that when 2 gay guys get married and then divorced, they both get screwed over by the court system?

    • The Redman says:

      04:22pm | 05/07/10

      I’d have to say marriage itself, rather than monogamy, is rather anachronistic. The ceremony itself is rather quaint, while I’m not sure about the tradition. Twenty odd years on, and the ‘tradition’ to me appears to be that all your mates and relatives have the chance to get pissed at your, or your parents, expense, and the gaurantee, and a rare one at that, that if you, as the groom, stay sober, you’re definately going to get some.

      By the way, I am a feminist man. My wife told me I was. smile

    • Lee from WA says:

      01:50am | 06/07/10

      It seems odd because we have turned a ceremony about commitment and fidelity towards another person into a self-indulgent spectacle. The important bit for most people is the wedding and not the marriage. We spend thousands on the day but spend no time thinking about how to prepare ourselves for a life of service of another person.

    • Chase says:

      07:35pm | 05/07/10

      I’m Pro-Marriage (Or at least that’s what I call myself, discriminators would probably disagree) but I’d rather the Marriage act be abolished and replaced with civil unions.

    • Simone Debauvoir says:

      10:47pm | 05/07/10

      Does this mean that right and wrong, can or can’t are also meaningless terms. After all they all belong to a time when categories mattered like gay and not gay.. No wonder Utzon left the postmodern expression the “Opera House” unfinished. Australia is still too backward and applies categories here and there when they have already died everywhere else in the world. Modernity and it’s romantic categories is dead already!

    • Ryan says:

      11:15pm | 05/07/10

      Trust me if I could get married it wouldn’t be anything like a straight marriage! In fact in much the same way that boomer gays taught straights how to have sex for fun. We can show you how to have a respectful and satisfying marriage.

    • Matt says:

      05:07am | 06/07/10

      It doesn’t matter to me if,  thanks to straight people, marriage seems to be oppressive, dull and patriarchal and it also doesn’t matter to me whether there is any tie between marriage and organised religion or the church.  Whether gay people acknowledge it or not, the fundamental reason gay marriage should be legal has far less to do with the symbolic SOCIAL statement including gay people in “society” as valid people with valid relationships.  It is, on a more basic, blatant and important level, about the hundreds of civil rights afforded to married couples with reference to tax, immigration and property ownership that gay people are currently denied because they can’t marry.  Gay people should have access to those protective rights just as straight people do. 

      Discussion on this issue is constantly derailed in the US and Australia alike by gay people who get too emotionally involved in simply wanting to not feel bullied and straight people pretending it is merely a symbolic social and spiritual ritual.

    • AnnieMelendez says:

      01:57pm | 10/01/11

      Some time ago, I needed to buy a building for my firm but I didn’t have enough cash and couldn’t buy anything. Thank heaven my brother adviced to take the business loans from creditors. Therefore, I acted so and was satisfied with my short term loan.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter