28 July 2008

National Day of Action for Marriage Equality

| Passy
Join the conversation
100

Marriage equality

In the coming week or so there will be demonstrations around Australia for equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians and for their right to adopt.

[ED – In the interests of local topicallity let it be noted that the Canberra demonstration will be at 1.30 pm on Saturday 2 August in Garema Place]

Many people will attend out of a sense of fairness. It is only just that any person, irrespective of sexual orientation, has equal rights with others.

But we need to go further and understand the roots of homophobia in our society to begin to see how to overcome this deep seated reaction.

The forces against gay marriage are numerous. Half a million of them were in Sydney a few weeks ago.

But it would be a mistake to attribute anti-gay sentiment to religion alone. Certainly many religious groups (but not all) have taken up the cudgels of anti-homosexual propaganda as their power and influence over society has weakened.

Historically it is not even the case that the rise of Christianity coincided with the rise of anti-same sex laws.

The decline of the power of the Roman Empire (before Constantine converted to Christianity) saw it begin to tax its own citizens to save itself. Prior to this decline the wealth of the Empire had been built solely on slaves.

As its own citizens became part of the exploited classes through taxation, the Emperors enacted laws banning all sexual activity (not just same sex activity) that did not lead to procreation. Anal sex, homosexuality, bestiality were all non-productive and so were banned. The thinking was that by doing this there would be more Roman citizens to exploit.

This is precisely the thinking that led the ruling elite under capitalism to attack homosexuality. Indeed the word homosexuality was not known until the late 19th Century when the anti-same sex campaign reached full expression.

Why then?

Capitalism had waged a long campaign to drive peasants off the land and into the factories in the cities.

But for capitalism to continue, it needs its next generation of workers. The family provides the perfect solution for the employing class to bring that about.

A stereotypical family – male breadwinner, with wife and children as chattels – creates that future group of workers, at little cost to those who benefit, the bosses. The cost is borne by the bread winner and more immediately his wife.

This model, to be successful, needed to be enforced on workers who showed little enthusiasm initially for this family. Criminalising homosexual activity was one aspect of this enforcement.

The Christian Churches were an accessory to this, partly because their rules on sexuality developed at a time when the Roman State had banned homosexual activity and Catholicism was about to take over that State.

The Church’s sleeping seed of rabid homophobia was given new life with the rise of capitalism. This gave power to the Churches as they struggled against the ideas of the enlightenment and rational thought.

The women’s liberation movement in the 60s and 70s broke the shackles of the family as the bedrock of society. The uneasy compromise capitalism reached with that movement – women as both workers and carers – opened up a space for those in same sex relationships.

Couple this with the fact that the 60s were truly a time of ferment and challenge to the ruling order, and militant demonstrations for homosexual rights saw the old anti-homosexual criminal laws swept away in many Western countries.

Some, like Spain, have now recognised gay marriage.

But make no mistake. The nature of capitalism is such that it still sees the family unit as the best model for cheaply producing the next generation of workers.

Hence, while accepting the reality of gay relationships, many (like Howard and Rudd) still hanker for the old days when women were brood mares for capital and homosexuality a crime.

Those days are gone, but the forces of reaction will try to wind back the gains if they can. They have popular allies in many of the churches and among more backward elements of society.

These demonstrations are an important step in defending and extending the rights of gays and lesbians to equality. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

John Passant is a Canberra writer. He will be attending the Canberra demonstration beginning at 1.30 pm on Saturday 2 August in Garema Place.

Join the conversation

100
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
neanderthalsis11:18 am 31 Jul 08

now he’s a Canberra yobbo. At least 2 rungs up on the social ladder.

Neanderthalsis above is right. It’s much easier for someone to move up the scale these days. Todd Carney was once a Goulburn yobbo!

Loquaciousness11:05 am 31 Jul 08

Simbo, very well put. Thanks for sharing 🙂

L

neanderthalsis10:50 am 31 Jul 08

Passy said :

The world is divded into workers and boses (in the main). we workers sell our labour. The bosses won the factories, mines, offices and so forth. Theya re the capitalists ebcasue they won the very things essential to produce goods and service, and allw e own is our ability to work.

The one true beauty of modern capitalism is the ease of transition between the roles of worker and boss (to use your terminology). Many of the leaders of industry in Australia today started their lives on the factory floor. Given that by the ABS 2004 Small Business figures there were 1,660,000 owner / operators of non-agricultural small / medium enterprises, add in the farm boys and you have nearly a quarter of the Australian workforce as one of your so-called bosses.

The days of Victorian England are behind us. Now your average coal miner can earn more that someone on the back bench in the federal parliament, in fact I’m sure that many Canberrans in mid – senior level PS jobs earn more than a backbencher. We don’t have bosses and workers any more, we have what I like to call the “prostitute model”. Everyone sells themselves, in some form, to the highest bidder. Some sell their bodies (physical labour) some, like me who would get bugger all for my body, sell their mental capacity. We all do it, from Don Argus down to the 16yo behind the counter at MacDonalds.

As a nation we have become increasingly secular, whilst a solid portion of the population identify themselves as Christian, many are non-practicing. Church going numbers are exceptionally low.

Most people a very strongly libertarian, more than willing to let other people do what they want as long as it does not adversly effect our standard of living. Thus the reason many people aren’t supportive of gay marriage, is because they honestly don’t care. they did that quick mental calculation of “will this affect me?” came up with the conclusion that no it won’t and subsequently switched off.

It is not a sexy cause either, it is not saving a cute little fur seal from being clubbed by a mean old eskimo, it will not stop a tree from being cut down, it won’t reduce inflation or make petrol cheaper, so the rest of us couldn’t give a flying bucket of monkey pus.

<

We should chip in and buy him a copy of Schama’s History of Britain.

He’d probably just write a Marxist critique of it and post it on here.

@ Tom Tom. You may be right. The website I read said that the ‘BBQ’ was held during work time. Other sites say it was lunch time. Either way, it was a union meeting, not a BBQ.

If you read my post, you may have noticed that I wasn’t actually discussing the merits of the the possible jailing of Mr. Washington.

I was talking of the extreme left’s tendency to hyperbole, exaggeration, distortions of history and general rejoicing in their predictions of doom. If you know who he is, have an online look at some of the stuff this guy writes.

Anyway, since you’re so keen, here’s some other of Passy’s claims you can defend:

“…many (like Howard and Rudd) still hanker for the old days when women were brood mares for capital and homosexuality a crime.” Oh really? He knows them? Both?

…”But for capitalism to continue, it needs its next generation of workers…criminalizing homosexual activity was one aspect of this enforcement.”
(edited, but the thrust of it is that evil capitalists banned homosexuality to create more workers. Who knew?)

And his ‘history’ of the Roman Empire? I’m sure he’s read all of Marx, but I don’t think he’s read much Gibbon. But you may be right about the lunch time thing. Enjoy.

.

Hopefully the gays petitioning for equality on this front do not include any of the nepotistic luvvies in my workplace (a collecting institution). I have never seen such open, unabashed, unashamed nepotism in a public service context.

Okay, I’m a gay bloke. And, should I meet another gay bloke I want to spend the rest of my life with, I’d like to get hitched to him. I generaly think that marriage is a civil institution, NOT a religious one – most weddings nowadays take place outside of a church, and with no religious implications whatsoever.

And people like Passy annoy the living hell out of me. I was actually involved in the first of this year’s civil union rallies – as part of the planning and preparations for a rally in support of the ACT government’s process. It was a good rally – up until one member of the group decided that, despite the planning process deliberately having decided AGAINST having a big march, a member of the group suddenly grabbed a megaphone and declared we were all marching to Garema Place. Who was it? Oh, my gosh, it would be the one who had friends from Resistance along for the ride. The professional rabble-rousers.

I object to people like Passy who aren’t really invested in my cause at all – they just find it a perfectly viable excuse to sound off on all sorts of irrelevant, inappropriate stuff. You care about gay marriage or you don’t because you believe two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together should be able to do that without impedement or other drama. You don’t care about it because of the socio-political history of Capitalism.

imhotep, the meeting was held off site, outside of work hours and was over a bbq, get your facts straight.

the cfmeu organiser is being threatend with jail for refusing to answer questions from the ABCC and betraying his members privacy, not just for having the bbq.

there are a lot more horror stories about the ABCC floating around if you want to do some research; try looking up the 19yr old who was targetted after his workmate was seriously injured, or the uni lecturer who was targetted after overhearing a union meeting.

i’d suggest passy might actually have more of a clue than you about this

(Thumper) ‘…intellectual is someone who cares more about their own ideaology than they do about people.’

Funny you should say that Thumper. Have you noticed that the extreme left (along with religious extremists) are always talking about some looming apocalypse, (with seeming glee).

They don’t seem too worried about all the misery that would accompany some global meltdown, so long as it vindicated their particular ideology.

Passy,
I rarely criticise spelling in online forums. But your #98 rant borders on illegibility. If you call yourself a writer, you are sadly mistaken.

Passy, you claim that a union official was to go to jail for having a BBQ. I thought ‘bloody hell! That’s a bit rough’.

However, google revealed that the ‘BBQ’ was in fact an off-site union meeting attended by 500 people, held in work time.

I don’t know what the meeting was about. Perhaps there are serious grievances at that work site.

But why can’t you guys just tell the truth? Your OP is full of ‘facts’ which are at best debatable. All these little distortions and half-truths dilute the validity of your opinion.

PeterH

Thanks for your comemtns. The world is divded into workers and boses (in the main). we workers sell our labour. The bosses won the factories, mines, offices and so forth. Theya re the capitalists ebcasue they won the very things essential to produce goods and service, and allw e own is our ability to work.

of course I ahve possesssions. That deosn’t make me a capitalist. we want all to have the toothbrush factroy, not your toothbrush.

Your friends are rihgt, although my Uni colleagues tell me there is a bit of a resonance on campus about teh issue of gay marriage equality. But the ALP (includign the Chief Minister) have gvien at elast verbal support to teh rally.

if your firends don’t turn up becuase it will just be the same old faces then it will becomea self fulling prophesy.

I don’t see what relevance my sexuality has to the discussion. I just see this issue as one of basic equality and at the same time linked to a range of other issues in our society, inclduing the wider issue of de facto discrimination against gays, people of other races and the denigration and criminalisation of legitimate union activity.

I’m sorry you find my articles on Online Opinion difficult to read. It is a common complaint aginst me. I write in what I think are simple styles and find i ahve written for people who are experts on a topic (when I am not an expert and at best like most journalists or opinion writers am just a generalist). I am trying to address my style but think that after 30 yeasr or so of writing this way it is going to be hard to kick.

Passy, where do you fit in the scheme of things? are you a part of a commune, or do you work and earn wages? do you have any luxury items?

If you are claiming that the world is full of capitalists, out to make money and gain possessions, do you have any?

why do I feel that the diatribe that you have provided seems to focus on others and not on yourself?

I have looked at online opinion a couple of times, but found it too difficult for me to read and understand without resorting to old battered copies of books I had to buy at a lifeline sale. I read to improve myself, but I have been bogged down by some of the comments that you have made, as well as the linkages between history and present.

i think that the fundamental question here, is whether you are gay, or campaigning for gay rights as a sympathiser?

The friends i have discussed this with feel that it is a storm in a teacup, and won’t have the necessary clout – probably will attract the same old faces at your national day, and won’t rate a mention in the news.

they are interested to see how you go, but won’t attend.

Deadmandrinking3:22 pm 30 Jul 08

Passy, to address your statement about homesexuality being banned to encourage the family unit in Victorian England and Australia – you need to remember that 99.9999% of these countries were Christian back then, therefore many of the standards of society were influenced by Christian thinking and in so forth, many of the laws. As to why homosexuality was originally banned by the bible, I’m not quite sure, but I suspect it may have to do with the sensibilities of the people who originally wrote it – the Hebrews, rather than the Romans, as Judaism and Islam are against homosexuality as well (although you are correct in thinking that the romans did a hell of alot of editing to make our current bible).|

You claimed that the reason homosexuality was banned was because the Roman Empire and the Victorian Empire wanted the family unit for what would eventually turn into Capitalism. I think you’re wrong about that. I think it’s more to do with religious sensibilities passed down by Christianity itself, rather than an edit by the Romans, since Judaism and Islam share similar views, and they evolved from the same religious thinking but didn’t go through the Roman Empire.
I don’t think homosexuality is opposed by the Christian right to preserve the traditional idea of a family unit for the purposes of Capitalism. I think it’s because opposing it secures the Christian Right demographic and the homophobic moron with a mortgage, as well as the homophobic moron without a mortgage demographic.

deadmandrinking

You say:

“Ignoring Ralph usually ill-thought out statements (oh, what the heck, Ralph, anti-gay persecution has been going on for centuries – you’d think they would have been ‘bred out’ by now if your theory worked.)

“Passy, to address your statement about homesexuality being banned to encourage the family unit in Victorian England and Australia – you need to remember that 99.9999% of these countries were Christian back then, therefore many of the standards of society were influenced by Christian thinking and in so forth, many of the laws. As to why homosexuality was originally banned by the bible, I’m not quite sure, but I suspect it may have to do with the sensibilities of the people who originally wrote it – the Hebrews, rather than the Romans, as Judaism and Islam are against homosexuality as well (although you are correct in thinking that the romans did a hell of alot of editing to make our current bible).

“The concept of ‘mateship’, I thought at least, is descended from the convict settler era, where many of the first whites depended on each other to survive in what was often a harsh and unforgiving land.

“I believe in equal marraige and I couldn’t give a toss what a grown adult does to another grown adult in their bedroom and, to be honest, I might address another of Ralph’s statements (lucky you!) in saying that with polygamy…hell, if three people agree to it and they’re okay with it..f-ck yeah! I’ll buy them a beer! Don’t tell me you wouldn’t want two wives…”

I agree with much of this so I am not sure what I am supposed to debate with you. However I’m not sure about polygamy, or polyandry either.

I do think the question of mateship might have more to do with the fact that the ratio of men to women in settler and squatter days was hugely out of whack (is there a pun in there somewhere?). So on those cold and lonely nights … And bingo, the concept of mateship arises, suitably sanitised today. Maybe it came out of the first world war and the need to depend on others for your life in the hell holes that were Gallipoli and the Western front and the like.

Don’t know, but either explanation does seem on the surface plausible. I merely asked the question about mateship to suggest that one of our great traditions might in fact express ideas and realities many of the posters might vehemently disagree with. No doubt the historians on the site can disabuse me of my “out loud” thinking about mateship.

Deadmandrinking2:52 pm 30 Jul 08

Passy said :

Aurelius

I was going to write Todd Carney: the marxist analysis, and post it here, but found my satire was too close to my truth. And it wasn’t that funny (unlike my hopefully forthcoming piece on Stalinism and the Public service in City News in the next few weeks.)

After finding out so much about myself from the friendly posters here – tosser, wanker, pissant (always original and funny), hypocrite, bigot, joker, jokerless, unemployabe trotskyist, to name some of the nicer descriptions – I fear continuing the personal journey of professional enlightment bestowed upon me for free by so many experts. We shall see. I might just flee back to the ghetto of socialist alternative or online opinion (which has a piece today by me about the possible jailing of a building union official for holding a BBQ).

Well, you could answer my comments and engage in a debate. I think you were wrong about some of the things you said…prove me wrong. It’s fun, give it a shot.

Aurelius

I was going to write Todd Carney: the marxist analysis, and post it here, but found my satire was too close to my truth. And it wasn’t that funny (unlike my hopefully forthcoming piece on Stalinism and the Public service in City News in the next few weeks.)

After finding out so much about myself from the friendly posters here – tosser, wanker, pissant (always original and funny), hypocrite, bigot, joker, jokerless, unemployabe trotskyist, to name some of the nicer descriptions – I fear continuing the personal journey of professional enlightment bestowed upon me for free by so many experts. We shall see. I might just flee back to the ghetto of socialist alternative or online opinion (which has a piece today by me about the possible jailing of a building union official for holding a BBQ).

Passy said :

Oops. For what it is worth it was after Nixon lost the 1962 race for Governor of California, not the 1960 presidential election. He said to the press “You won’t have Richard Nixon to kick around any more..”

Passy, does that mean we wont have you to kick around anymore?
I am not sure whether to be pleased or disappointed. It’s been such fun.

DJ said :

He probably sees the number of responses to his insane rant and believes that he has ‘touched’ many people and opened their eyes.

#78 didn’t even think of the big fella and his mates there….. must be my lack of edumacation

nah, it was pointed out to me by a very religious mate. they don’t post here, thank G*d, but they do read a few. (I don’t want him coming after me for blasphemy, but he will, anyway)

For all it’s ridiculousness, I have to say I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread.

…if I could only remember what it was originally about.

Oops. For what it is worth it was after Nixon lost the 1962 race for Governor of California, not the 1960 presidential election. He said to the press “You won’t have Richard Nixon to kick around any more..”

You are right. It was the wrong article for the wrong audience at the wrong time. My apologies for having misinterpreted this site and wasted your time. Instead of such a speculative piece I should have just given details of the national day of action for marriage equality beginning at 1.30 pm on Saturday 2 August in Garema Pl.

What was it Richard Nixon said after JFK beat him in the 1960 presidential elections?

He probably sees the number of responses to his insane rant and believes that he has ‘touched’ many people and opened their eyes.

#78 didn’t even think of the big fella and his mates there….. must be my lack of edumacation

imhotep hits the nail smack bang on the head with comment #82.

Whats he on about with his 19th century capitalist anti gay tirade. Why doesnt he mention the lunatic nation of Islam thats been executing and generally maiming gays with abandon for centuries. Although like his anti Howard comment as well Its to politically incorrect to criticise Islam the problems of the world for these people is always the west.

Anyone ever noticed that religious extremists and political extremists have a lot in common?

-They appear to have read only one book. But they know that book very. bloody. well.

-You don’t actually have a conversation with them, you just briefly interrupt their spiel.

-They are absolutely without a sense of humour.

Passy it sounds like English, but I can’t understand a word you’re saying.

passy, one other thing. are you a public servant or a private operator?

If you are the john passant I am thinking of, you are a hypocrite.

Passy – after attending a mates ‘civil union’ in the UK I might have considered showing support if it wasn’t for that garbage you typed. I’m just embarrassed for you now.

Passy said :

And yes, I suspect the national day of action won’t have that many people there. I seem to remember someone else who at one stage only had 12 supporters and even some of them waivered. From little things big things grow.

now you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. don’t presume to compare yourself to Jesus Christ, as you have mentioned, most of the churches are anti-gay. who headed them up at one point with their 12 supporters?? wasn’t a gay person, it was the founder of the church.

If you want to compare yourself to the messiah, savior etc, start with the miracles. water into wine would be nice, but I would like to see you walk across the lake in the middle of winter.

if you can’t, surprise, surprise, then perhaps you should realise that these comments won’t put me on your side, and strangely enough, most of my gay friends would be the first to spit in your face. (they may not be allowed in the church, but that doesn’t change their belief system) you want the population to support you, don’t compare yourself to the disciples and the messiah. big mistake. huge.

what makes me angry the most is that you have come on here attacking everyone. I don’t care about the roman empire, they are long gone. don’t care about capitalism, bourges-something, 19th century etc, etc. if you had said, “who is interested in attending a pro gay marriage rally?” I wouldn’t have attended, but I would have told a couple of friends who would have.

they have read your insane ranting, and hope that you don’t get them tarred with the same nasty brush. pull your head in.

Deadmandrinking4:10 pm 29 Jul 08

hairy nosed wombat said :

Someone has to say it.

The down side of two wives is you also get two mothers-in-law

Let one wife deal with the other’s 😉

Granny said :

… and two wives!

*hehe*

HAHA, just what I was thinking.

… and two wives!

*hehe*

hairy nosed wombat3:38 pm 29 Jul 08

Someone has to say it.

The down side of two wives is you also get two mothers-in-law

Deadmandrinking2:34 pm 29 Jul 08

Jesus…that was some reading!

Ignoring Ralph usually ill-thought out statements (oh, what the heck, Ralph, anti-gay persecution has been going on for centuries – you’d think they would have been ‘bred out’ by now if your theory worked.)

Passy, to address your statement about homesexuality being banned to encourage the family unit in Victorian England and Australia – you need to remember that 99.9999% of these countries were Christian back then, therefore many of the standards of society were influenced by Christian thinking and in so forth, many of the laws. As to why homosexuality was originally banned by the bible, I’m not quite sure, but I suspect it may have to do with the sensibilities of the people who originally wrote it – the Hebrews, rather than the Romans, as Judaism and Islam are against homosexuality as well (although you are correct in thinking that the romans did a hell of alot of editing to make our current bible).

The concept of ‘mateship’, I thought at least, is descended from the convict settler era, where many of the first whites depended on each other to survive in what was often a harsh and unforgiving land.

I believe in equal marraige and I couldn’t give a toss what a grown adult does to another grown adult in their bedroom and, to be honest, I might address another of Ralph’s statements (lucky you!) in saying that with polygamy…hell, if three people agree to it and they’re okay with it..f-ck yeah! I’ll buy them a beer! Don’t tell me you wouldn’t want two wives…

Loquaciousness2:21 pm 29 Jul 08

smiling politely said :

Y’know John (Passy), you really could have just written a post saying

“Hi everyone, this Saturday there’s going to be a public demonstration in support of equality of marriage and adoption rights for gays and lesbians, and it’d be great if you could come on down and show your support”.

Instead, by including a bit of a rant about capitalism and homophobia you’ve managed to alienate potential supporters and undermine your own cause. Not the best strategy – and probably not appreciated by other groups with an interest in the issue. Keep it simple, keep it consistent, and fer cryin’ out loud use your nogging for actually thinking about how to achieve what you’re after instead of trying to bring people around to an arguably unrelated and irrelevant ideological view.

[Hrmph!]

Hear! Hear!

L

Aurelius said :

+ve REP Overheard

Understandium nullius! Qué?!

+ve REP Overheard

Aurelius said :

A pro gay rally?
Is that what he was on about?

I think he was talking about amateurs. They have to win a few times on the circuit and then apply for accreditation before turning pro.

A pro gay rally?
Is that what he was on about?

smiling politely1:17 pm 29 Jul 08

Y’know John (Passy), you really could have just written a post saying

“Hi everyone, this Saturday there’s going to be a public demonstration in support of equality of marriage and adoption rights for gays and lesbians, and it’d be great if you could come on down and show your support”.

Instead, by including a bit of a rant about capitalism and homophobia you’ve managed to alienate potential supporters and undermine your own cause. Not the best strategy – and probably not appreciated by other groups with an interest in the issue. Keep it simple, keep it consistent, and fer cryin’ out loud use your nogging for actually thinking about how to achieve what you’re after instead of trying to bring people around to an arguably unrelated and irrelevant ideological view.

[Hrmph!]

I thought my ‘people are jerks who like to use the power of the state’ alternative theory was valid. Pissant completely ignored it. Oh well.

I’d just like to say how shocked and pleased I am to see a few people question all of this from the perspective of whether the Government should be involved in marriage at all (beyond contractual arrangements).

It warms this libertarians heart.

Pissant: Why do you think the subjective theory of value is wrong and the labour theory of value is right?

Ok, so I am in a minority of one so far.

Yes you are.

No one has yet rebutted my argument that the rise of capitalism and its dependence on the family for the next generation of workers were the driving forces behind the criminalisation of homosexual activity in Victorian England and Australia.

That’s because it is dribble from the mind of somebody who has educated themselves into a corner and hasn’t managed to consider the other options available.

At least I have brightened up the day for some of you.

Actually no you haven’t. Can I have the time back please?

From little things big things grow.

FFS, now we are quoting Paul kelly to ellicit some sort of understanding.

* Peter@home, I think you’ll find that a vast majority of people on RA hold tertiary qualifications in one field or another, sometimes in multiple fields 😉

i do realise that thumper, but even your tertiary quals must have taken a hammering for the disjointed linkages of passy’s idealistic view of all things bad – roman empire, 19th century, capitalism, bourgeoisie (had to C+P that one, can’t even say it) – is there any particular reason to throw all these broken links together?

if they are interested in gay marriages, fine. it is called a commitment ceremony. it exists today. If they want to be married in a church, how?

who is the man and woman in the relationship?
who will decide to stay home and look after the kids, or drop them off at child care?
(where the hell will the fetus gestate, reg? in a box?)

why bring theories into the discussion about the rest of the state of the world and blame straight marriages?

if there wasn’t a few of these straight marriages, there would have been no problem.

gay people don’t produce babies naturally. They need medical assistance, donations or surrogacy.

Genetics makes people gay.

The reason why it hasn’t been bred out yet is because you can get a mutation where some people are bisexual, and pass on the gay genes to the next generation.

Loquaciousness9:56 am 29 Jul 08

Passy said :

I think as the economic crisis worsens (this I think is a possiblity) there may be more people who question the rule of capital or at least some aspects of it. While for most people on this site sexuality is obviously not that questioning point, there may be some who wonder why half the world’s population is malnourished and 1 bn of those are starving; why the US appears to be going into recession along with the UK, why the stock market is falling, why inflation is icnreasing along with interest rates and petrol prices and food, why global warming threatens our existence etc etc.

Ummmmmm. What? This stuff is caused by gay marriage? Or is it caused by traditional marriage? So we should support gay marriage, in order to stop the recession? Or should we increase interest rates, in order to curb consumer spending, in order to bring down inflation, in order to increase acceptance of gay marriage? Oh … hold on … maybe it’s that we need to send more food to developing countries, because if government didn’t have to worry about starvation any more, then they would be naturally pre-disposed to sanctioning gay marriage? Perhaps if gay marriage was allowed, it would increase the oil reserves, thereby bring fuel prices down? Oh, it must be the stock markets! If the stock markets weren’t so volatile, then the public consumer would more likely to accept non-traditional marriages?

You know, I used to support gay marriage. But that was before I realised it had anything to do with Capitalism, the ‘western bourgeoisie’, starvation in developing countries, national debt, inflation and fuel prices. Now I’m not so sure anymore …

L

Passy, if I were to claim the sky is purple with pink stripes, and then demand others prove me wrong, being in a minority of one would not make me right, it’d make me an idiot.

Passy said :

Ok, so I am in a minority of one so far.

No one has yet rebutted my argument that the rise of capitalism and its dependence on the family for the next generation of workers were the driving forces behind the criminalisation of homosexual activity in Victorian England and Australia.

To raise another issue, where do you think the idea of Australian mateship come from?

Anyway, the expression I used about broodmares for capital was an attempt to parody the bourgeoisie and their views about workers as mere production points in their profit factories.

Wage slavery – geez granny, you really have bourgeois sensibilities. We as workers sell our labour power and our rewards (our wages) are not the value we create but the lesser value required to feed clothe and regenerate us, the difference being pocketed by the bosses. In other words we create the value in the world; the bosses take it from us through the ownership of factories etc. hence wage slavery.

My point in this article is to raise the question of the link between capitalism and the suppression of normal human behaviour. The struggle for human liberation cannot be won under a system which takes the value we create and re-invests it for profit, not human need and as a consequence venerates one form of human realtionship to the almost total exclusion of all others. This means that the struggle for sexual liberation will be an ongoing battle and the demand for equal marriage rights (like the demand for eqaul superaanuation rights) it but one aspect of that much broader struggle.

At least I have brightened up the day for some of you.

And yes, I suspect the national day of action won’t have that many people there. I seem to remember someone else who at one stage only had 12 supporters and even some of them waivered. From little things big things grow.

um.

dem big words. what dey mean?

if I cannot understand what the hell you are saying, I am not going to be able to formulate an opinion. try to understand, many of us didn’t get to go to a fancy university and learn big words to try and make a point that has been lost in the background noise.

Gay marriage, schmay marriage. Debate it till the cows come home – by all means. The smart money says it’ll happen sooner or later. Probably when most of the folk railing against it realise that they don’t really give a crap anyway and stop caring for long enough for it to squeak though parliament.

Me – I’m just happy to see an unreconstructed Marxist in the wild. I thought they were extinct.

Passy: I think you are reading so much more into the issue than really exists. Homaphobia, Religious Teaching and a general resistance to change would be the reasons I think people are against Gay Marriage. The Capitalist argument is a good conspiracy theory and one of the more creative ones I have heard for a while.

My opinion. Why isn’t having a commitment ceremony which legally registers your relationship enough ? The word ‘Marriage’ holds special significance for many, why create more resistance by insisting on using it ? With a such creative minds at work surely someone can invent a new name that has special significance for the Gay community. Why try to conform ?

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Sorry guys, been away for a few days…

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

FWIW, I don’t support gay marriage or adoption. And anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot who doesn’t respect my right to have an opinion.

Awww someone stole the line I was going to use. Smartest post in the thread! I got lost in all the other essays of rubbish.

Back on topic the church and religion will die before capitalism… and you can take that to the bank….. hahahaha

Surely you can create the same legal entity as marriage with a “family” trust or similiar device then dress up real nice invite all your friends and family around have a party and get drunk fly to a tropical island make a mess of their spa and sheets and call yourselves married?

teepee’s right leave government out of it.

Passy said :

… there may be some who wonder why half the world’s population is malnourished and 1 bn of those are starving …

Go armchair socialism!

Unfortunately I will confess to having no real knowledge of the mid 19th century history but I would suggest that a lot of things were criminalised, owning slaves maybe? opium? incest? etc etc because nations were being built and a massive shift in societies due to the industrial revolutions.

I would say that capitalism was built because of the way our families were organised not the other way around…

I can tell you exactly why the US is in a recession… George Bush has dug a huge hole in the desert and dumped a trillion dollars into it thereby making the US dollar worthless. The real problem that you are talking about is not actually capitalism it is instead monetary policy (international and national) and how “reserve banks” actually create inflation by lending out more money than they actually have ten times over therefore creating an ever increasing supply of money more money in society means it is worth less and less (hence inflation) they then use interest to further collect money for themselves. Banks are really huge vacuums for money that cause the horrible re-distribution of wealth you talk about. Third world debt caused by interest is the reason people are starving in resource rich countries, no other reason. The taxes imposed on the population to pay the debt suck money out of that country and into the wealthiest enclaves of our civilization namely europe and the US.

We always sold our labour for survival it was called the hunt, or the raid or the harvest. Now we replace food and shelter with an exchange medium called money which has sadly become a commodity in itself creating market forces with an intangible object we use for transactions for real things.

See now you got me started…

I still think you’d have more chance of getting somewhere with campaigning for gay marriage, than you will with trying to end capitalism.

Isn’t marriage really a church created institution? It is not really a creation of government, although governments may provide regulatory frameworks for recognition and for consequences in the fields of taxation, benefits, etc.

Are the protestors having a go at governments or at regilions? If conventional marriage doesn’t achieve the recognition you seek, you cannot really demand of adherents of a religion that they change their belief systems to suit your preferences.

You can quibble with governments abour forms of legal recognition, but “marriage” is not government’s creation to play with. I say this as a libertarian, not as someone with a strict religious affiliation.

Thanks sleaz274.

No I don’t think there has been “a 2000 year campaign to merely increase our population so we can all toil for the masters of the universe.”

Like you I accept that society changes depending on the economic circumstances underpinning it. That’s why your examples about natural male and female roles while they appear sensible are merely reflective of a particular society or societies.

So tell me why the campaign to criminalise homosexuality and enforce that criminalisation arose during the mid to late 19th Century. What factors explain that?

I think your figures about most people being straight may reflect the fact that a few hundred years of repression make us see that as normal and so cut off anything else as an option. I believe however that those who have had homosexual relationships are more than 5 per cent of the population, and those who fantasise about it much greater. But I don’t have the figures to hand.

It is not a conspiracy. The family unit is built into the way capitalism is organised (although it is now outnumbered by non-traditional family arrangements) and so looks normal to us, just as selling our labour power to survive looks normal.

I think as the economic crisis worsens (this I think is a possiblity) there may be more people who question the rule of capital or at least some aspects of it. While for most people on this site sexuality is obviously not that questioning point, there may be some who wonder why half the world’s population is malnourished and 1 bn of those are starving; why the US appears to be going into recession along with the UK, why the stock market is falling, why inflation is icnreasing along with interest rates and petrol prices and food, why global warming threatens our existence etc etc.

Maybe.

Wow truly wow that’s an amazing rant with no foundation in anything close to reality. Do you really think there has been a 2000 year campaign to merely increase our population so we can all toil for the masters of the universe. Holy sh*t there is no way to argue with that amount of stupidity.

But here goes…

Welcome to the real world…

Gays are a minority. Most people (I’m guessing roughly 95%) enjoy sex with people of the opposite sex. Why would anyone need to create laws to make this happen? The basic family unit of humans in small tribes surely proves from an evolutionary perspective that we are basically designed to operate as male-female pairs with the men being built to throw rocks and sticks at moving animals and as protection from marauding tribes and other suitors. Women are designed to nurture children, collect foods, bond the group socially and a thousand other things (which is why they can multi task) the span of human evolution in which we have a constantly growing population regardless is so vast compared to any time period you mention and “capitalism” that it actually pains me to have to explain this to you.

As a minority gays are also subject to being “different” and all the complications that arise when humans don’t recognise, and can’t deal with differences in society. People generally do not like other people who are different from themselves (I’m making a huge generalisation obviously but seeing as you have also I feel somewhat justified) therefore the majority of held beliefs have led to a series of laws and actions over the length of history that has vilified gays. The bible didn’t create anti-homosexuality it was already present in society in those ages just like the Nazis didn’t create anti-semitism sentiment but amplified and legislated it.

The course of human history is far too vast and randomn for it all to be a conspiracy to create a working population for future capitalism. Capitalism itself will pass it is like every other economic system moving and evolving it is just the best we have come up with so far in creating wealth however it increasingly distributes it very poorly. We have always had to work whether it was skinning animals and hauling water or typing on the internet all day and here is a big call we probably always will under any economic system.

Personally on gay marriage who cares what 2 people want to do together as consensual adults and if they want to get married then go ahead. It creates no harm and would bring a lot of joy to many people so why not?

So there is your rebuttal…(pun intended hahaha)

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy9:34 pm 28 Jul 08

Sorry guys, been away for a few days…

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

FWIW, I don’t support gay marriage or adoption. And anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot who doesn’t respect my right to have an opinion.

Still in a minority of one I see. Oh well. I guess the ideas of debate and discussion haven’t yet reached this site. Abuse seems to be the common currency of the realm here.

A gay capitalist would thunder against or more likley laugh about my analysis.The pink dollar is a real issue. So most of the posters here would have some allies in the gay movement.

As a Catholic, I don’t necessarily object to gay marriage, but I positively cannot condone gay divorce. And under no circumstances should gay married couples ever be permitted to use contraceptives.

Sounds pretty gay to me.

I blame global warming.

Is there anything that Capitalism isn’t to blame for, according to the Socialist Alliance?

Perhaps the genetics are different in communist countries, but gay people were actively oppressed in the former Soviet Union, and I’ll bet the gay rights movement in North Korea is a little under-funded.

Wide Boy Jake said :

Western bourgeoisie

What is a “western bourgeoisie”? Can you take it for a walk on a lead?

It’s a pasta sauce from the Bourgeon region (which is in the west country, making the description slightly tautological — not to be confused with tagliatelle, which is sourced (or sauced) from the east).

Passy said :

Wage slavery – geez granny, you really have bourgeois sensibilities.

Oh, you know that do you?

In the past 27 years I have experienced discrimination as:

a pregnant teen;
a single parent;
‘just’ a housewife; and
a carer of a child with multiple severe disabilities;

and I know a bigot:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion;
one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ; and
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own;

when I see one.

Jonathon Reynolds5:49 pm 28 Jul 08

Passy,

If you would like (impartial) video coverage of the event I am happy to do so via my CanberraVotes.com ( http://CanberraVotes.com ) website. Whilst marriage is technically a Federal legislative issue, I am prepared to cover the subject given recent attempts by the ACT Government to introduce “Civil Union” legislation and the likelihood that it is going to be an issue going towards the ACT Election. I am not interested in the nefarious capitalism aspects in your original article.

My take on the whole issue is that I think places like Germany have the whole relationship and legal status situation sorted out a lot better than we do here in Australia. Over there the formalisation of a relationship between two individuals (regardless of gender and orientation) is covered under the concept of a Civil Union, and the “marriage” is ceremonial in nature with no effective legal standing. Thus it becomes a religious and not a legal issue on what defines “marriage” – those that want their equal legal status are afforded it through the civil union.

Please contact me (via the contact form on my website) with the details of who will be actually organising the rally so I can touch base with them to ensure that there will be no issues with coverage.

Wide Boy Jake5:48 pm 28 Jul 08

Western bourgeoisie

Here we go again…

What is a “western bourgeoisie”? Can you take it for a walk on a lead?

Ok, so I am in a minority of one so far.

No one has yet rebutted my argument that the rise of capitalism and its dependence on the family for the next generation of workers were the driving forces behind the criminalisation of homosexual activity in Victorian England and Australia.

To raise another issue, where do you think the idea of Australian mateship come from?

Anyway, the expression I used about broodmares for capital was an attempt to parody the bourgeoisie and their views about workers as mere production points in their profit factories.

Wage slavery – geez granny, you really have bourgeois sensibilities. We as workers sell our labour power and our rewards (our wages) are not the value we create but the lesser value required to feed clothe and regenerate us, the difference being pocketed by the bosses. In other words we create the value in the world; the bosses take it from us through the ownership of factories etc. hence wage slavery.

My point in this article is to raise the question of the link between capitalism and the suppression of normal human behaviour. The struggle for human liberation cannot be won under a system which takes the value we create and re-invests it for profit, not human need and as a consequence venerates one form of human realtionship to the almost total exclusion of all others. This means that the struggle for sexual liberation will be an ongoing battle and the demand for equal marriage rights (like the demand for eqaul superaanuation rights) it but one aspect of that much broader struggle.

At least I have brightened up the day for some of you.

And yes, I suspect the national day of action won’t have that many people there. I seem to remember someone else who at one stage only had 12 supporters and even some of them waivered. From little things big things grow.

rofl you saw thru my ‘thinly veiled’ comment

Dawndrifter,
It’s okay to be anti-Passy without being anti-anything else
🙂

passy i hope your rubbish day of action is an utter failure and leaves you looking inwards at what you are trying to achieve.. being a cheergirl for dissolving the foundations of marriage like you are trying to do makes me sick and as far as im concerned man+man or woman+woman relationships should never hold equal status of married traditional couples..
IMO and dont care if you think im anti-gay passy

Passy, of course you wont see me at the protest.
Because I’ll be working.
Must be because my capitalist upbringing (not to mention my Roman tendencies so openly displayed by my choice of pseudonym) rate higher on my list of priorities than going to a rally to listen to the same old bunch of whiney sooks go on about how oppressed they are.
I happen to think that the whole gay marriage campaign is a waste of time. If the goal is so worthy, it’d have support. If it doesn’t, it must be a waste of time.

People can rant for hours about who/what is to blame, what occurred in history etc etc but I can’t see how it actually helps the cause.

I’m all for equal marriage rights but reading posts like this just makes my eyes glaze over.

‘western bourgeoisie’..pfft!

Working families are to blame for all the anti-gay hatred in the world.

And we all know HIV/AIDS was created by the CIA.

Western bourgeoisie

Here we go again…

Off with their heads!

Passy said :

Thanks Aurelius. If the anti-gay laws of the UK and Australia were not a product of capitalism and its need for future generations of wage slaves, what, given your superior intellect and historical ability, do you ascribe them to? What is your counterposing argument? Calling my views a joke and me a tosser I suppose is some sort of response but doesn’t provide an answer and certainly doesn’t satisfy those of us looking for meaasured alternative explanations that actually make some sort of sense and further the debate and dicussion and help refine our views and move humanity forward.

See you at the Day of Action?

I am not Aurelius but I’ll use this post as a spring board into the point I wanted to make. I would merely suggest that they are a product of the fact that the vast majority of people believe the Government should legislate in numerous aspects of our lives that have nothing to do with protecting us from the force of others, and everything to do with enforcing a particular moral code (particularly if that moral code is held by a significant number of people).

For example, we can clearly see that Australia has a strong Christian history. Part of Christian belief (if I can speak generally) is that marriage is between a man and a woman. To the extent that marriage has now become something that the Government is involved in, there is no separation in peoples minds between their church and their Government, between their community and their Government.

Quite frankly, socialism and marxism is to blame. It came along and flanked liberalism and ruined the party for everybody. We’ve been fighting a pitched battle between conservatism/authoritarianism on one side and socialism/social democracy on the other side, ever since.

To suggest that these laws are some sort of capitalist conspiracy is absurd when you consider that our laws (particularly in Australia) have not been particularly pro enterprise. We had protectionist policies for 80 years, for example. The ‘settlement’ policy prescription that dominated the vast majority of our countries history was not even close to being considered a capitalist wonderland.

Consider as another example, immigration. If ‘Capitalism’ (as if it were a sentient being) had so much power over our law making, why do we not have open borders? Cheaper labour makes for cheaper products.

Passant’s prose highlights the problem of having Socialist Alternative (and similar ilk) in charge of many progressive campaigns. It is something that politically conscious uni students get used to however I cannot think that the above rambling would do nothing but put people off. A Marxist conspiracy…sorry critique of everything makes for fun reading some times but it hardly helps the image of a movement.

I’ll give my own view on this issue. For the record, to the extent that the Government is going to be in the marriage business (and I think it’s clear that I take a skeptical view on whether it should be), it should not discriminate based on gender. Community groups, churches, and individuals should of course be completely free to recognise or not recognise such couples.

I will be at the protest. Half because I believe in the cause, half out of morbid curiosity.

I am in favour of Gay marriage.

But I dnt’ understand the purpose of trying to take on capitalism. It is like those protestors who got violent about Multinational companies – who were they really nagry at, and who did they expect to change?

‘Capitalism’ isn’t a person you can fight against.

I hope the day of action goes well.

johnboy, I think you are correct. If you regard Cuba as socialist (I do not, stalinist yes, socialist no), it persecutes gays.

But the Western bourgeoisie and the same could be said for the Stalinsit bourgeoisie) never gives anything up without a struggle. So it was with gay rights, and the struggle never ends as the bourgeoisie or elements of them hope to turn history back.

And it is not so long ago (just over a century) that Oscar Wilde was jailed. Indeed until 1968 from memory homosexaul activity was a crime in NSW. Police attacked the fhe first Mardi Gras in Sydney injuring some and arresting many.

Homophobia is still rife in many sections of our society. For some it is the usual “crap life, I’ll feel better by bagging those who are ‘different'” approach. For others it may be expression of their own latent but societally suppressed homosexuality.

And of course religion (much of which is anti-gay) still dominates our lives either directly for adherents or indirectly for the rest of us.

sexynotsmart3:44 pm 28 Jul 08

Hi there Passy.

It’s very difficult to ‘address the issues’ when your post outlines none. The piece offers no positive argument for the proposal. Consequently it reads as just another Euro-centric Christian-bashing soliliquy.

My favourite ISSUE in this area is that some partners of superannuation and life insurance account holders can still be dudded out of benefits. Those bastard banks are at it again! But I believe the issue can be resolved by mandating changed terms and conditions to superannuation and life insurance accounts. It doesn’t require change to the Commonwealth Marriage Act to resolve the ISSUE.

I think most Australians have heard several arguments for gay marriage in recent times. And that they listened to the arguments and made up their own minds. I know I did.

That doesn’t mean there is nothing to be done about gay and lesbian partnerships – but it will need to be something different to marriage. Maybe something like the ACT attempt to go down the ‘civil union’ path.

If you would like your piece to be taken seriously, can I offer these thoughts (intended as contructive criticisms)?

1) Do you really need the ‘Roman’ and ‘industrial revolution’ angles? They’re just too long ago to lend any cred.

2) Have you thought about balancing your anti-Christian fascination with factoids about other groups? You may want to include something about how gay marriage is (or isn’t!) recognised by Islam, Mormonism, Malaysia, Pakistan, Japan, Cuba, the People’s Republic of China and topical African nations.

3) What about moderating the tone just a tad? I think people will give the piece more respect if it demonstrates a little more tolerance for differing views in our glorious democracy. Statements like “the old days when women were brood mares for capital” are divisive, inflammatory and disrespectful. There’s a difference between a homophobe and someone who doesn’t want gay marriage. I think your communiques may better fit their intended purpose if you write with that in mind.

4) What about moderating the tone just a tad? I think people will give the piece more respect if it demonstrates a little more tolerance for differing views in our glorious democracy. Statements like “the old days when women were brood mares for capital” are divisive, inflammatory and disrespectful. There’s a difference between a homophobe and someone who doesn’t want gay marriage. I think your communiques may better fit their intended purpose if you write with that in mind.

Now some may argue that points 3 and 4 are technically the same. But I felt it’s such a biggie that it was worth mentioning twice.

As a mum, I take real offence at the way you categorise my life, my work and the way we are raising our children. We are certainly not raising them to be ‘wage slaves’. Wage slaves … how rude!

Oddly enough a quick look at my atlas suggest the most liberal acceptance of gays and lesbians seems to hold sway in the more capitalist countries.

Thanks Aurelius. If the anti-gay laws of the UK and Australia were not a product of capitalism and its need for future generations of wage slaves, what, given your superior intellect and historical ability, do you ascribe them to? What is your counterposing argument? Calling my views a joke and me a tosser I suppose is some sort of response but doesn’t provide an answer and certainly doesn’t satisfy those of us looking for meaasured alternative explanations that actually make some sort of sense and further the debate and dicussion and help refine our views and move humanity forward.

See you at the Day of Action?

Someone mentioned my articles on Online Opinion. At least the reactionary nutters and fruit loops there who attack me can occasionally mount a rational argument. Apparently not so here.

Passy, you want us to address the issue, and you write a pile of crap like you have?
Sure, I can address the issue, like why the gay-marriage lobby are going about their campaigns the wrong way, or that they’re essentially arguing for the wrong thing.
But what good is a history degree if I can’t hack stupid tirades like yours in a public forum? I didn’t do all that time in Haydon Allen Tank admiring all the young female students while on ‘study leave’ from my public service job for nothing! I gotta get some joy out of it all 🙂

Anti-gay laws a product of capitalism? What a joke. What else you going to do to blame your evils on some entirely unrelated enemy of yours? You gunna blame George Bush for global warming next??

I’d call you a tosser, but then Johnboy’d tell me to dispense with the personal attacks. 🙂
On that note, thanks for tidying up RA JB

smiling politely2:52 pm 28 Jul 08

Passy said :

Thanks for all the ad hominem attacks. Perhaps attempting to address the issues might be appropriate.

Passy – see Aurelius’ and Loquaciousness’ comments above. It’s perfectly legitimate to question the historical and rhetorical tools you’re attempting in support of your argument. You’ll get the usual share of “anti” comments simply by arguing in the public sphere.

If you don’t like the company then you’re entitled to keep hanging out over at Online Opinion instead – http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=5021. I guess this qualifies as one of your “radical, seemingly idiosyncratic and at times tendentious articles” as you’ve described yourself?

Mælinar - *spoiler alert* I've seen S04E132:44 pm 28 Jul 08

How can we when you paint us with cudgels ?

Thanks for all the ad hominem attacks. Perhaps attempting to address the issues might be appropriate.

Growling Ferret1:42 pm 28 Jul 08

Where is V8 Berlina when a cliche needs to be trotted out?

Indeed. Socialist Alliance and the usual gaggle of jobless Trotskyists will be about to opine at the protest de jour.

I’m all 100 of the usual faces will have a wonderful time at the protest together.

Passant a writer – that’s really funny!

Loquaciousness9:53 am 28 Jul 08

Passy, announcing the event would have been quite sufficient. Why unleash a tirade to go with it? All you’ve succeeded in doing is polarising your readers. Anybody who calls themselves a ‘writer’ should know that, not only should you refrain from writing stuff you clearly know nothing about (and if you do, you should at least check your ‘facts’), but that writing inflammatory things like you have only results in – well – flames. Sure, it might get more people reading your post, but the only people it’s going to attract to your event are those who are going to be throwing vindictive and ridicule (or harder objects if you’re unlucky). And I’m not sure that that was your intention …

the lead pipes that the roman empire used probably didn’t help much either.

Utter tosh!
The Empire’s decline stemmed from Hadrian and Trajan’s decision to cease expansion. This led to the legions no longer being able to get rich off plunder and conquest, and thus they turned more internally, allowing greater military involvement in politics and thus a gradually less stable and more fractured empire.
Taxation was widespread throughout the Empire for its entire lifespan. For example, the Emperor Vespasian introduced a tax on going to the toilet! Even the census surveys (which was the reason Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem on Christmas Day) were conducted for taxation reasons.
If you’re going to explain your rubbish by history, try reading some of it first.

It seems to me the issue is that homosexual couples want something that ‘mainstream’ heterosexual society does not want to, or is not yet ready to give them – ‘marriage’. Therefore homosexual couples need to think laterally and come up with an alternative description for what they want. While it is easy to call this homophobic, married members of society probably just want to preserve marriage as it currently stands. Is this wrong or discriminatory – no. I am sure many men have wanted maternity leave but as males it is something that they can’t have. They accept the fact and don’t play the discrimination card.

neanderthalsis9:19 am 28 Jul 08

So Catholics and capitalism are to blame?

Perhaps all the supporters of Gay Marriage should go and buy themselves an island and set up their own athiestic socialist utopia and stop their “oh woe is me” victimism and attributing blame for their plight on the silent majority in society.

Indeed the word homosexuality was not known until the late 19th Century when the anti-same sex campaign reached full expression.

Before this they were called sodomites and I do believe that their sexual persuasion would have caused much more social outrage and oppression than your average gay does now.

So you and all your little gay friends can go and march down the street protesting about how the mean and wicked old government is oppressing them by not allowing them to have marriage ceremony and the rest of us will not give a flying bucket of monkey pus because in the general scheme of things it is entirely a non-issue.

Nice to see some Marxists are still clinging to their failed ideology.

If we allow homosexual deviates to marry and adopt, it’s only fair that we also legislate to allow for polygamy? Right? There isn’t much difference once you’re on the slippery slope.

Indeed, Patsy failed to mention how the Islamic countries continue to execute gays.

What a gay thread

Mælinar - *spoiler alert* I've seen S04E139:01 am 28 Jul 08

So – the homophobes are portrayed as a cudgel weilding Roman Empireesque group of thugs; whereas the oppressed flower-wielding lovey doveys are into daisy chains in their hair and white robes.

A few thousand years of recorded history teaches us that the person with the biggest gun gets to write the chapter on winning the war. Good luck with that human wave concept.

I certainly support marriage equality and have a number of friends in same-sex relationships who are or are planning to become parents [I think they will be no worse and probably considerably better than me at this].

Passy’s post seems to confuse the issue of the nuclear family as economic unit and the relatively recent phenomena of homophobia.

If the nuclear family is a sham designed to breed workers for our capitalist masters, surely this is a reason to not only make a stand against gay marriage but against monogomous marriages of any sort. As gay couples are able to produce and economically support progeny [worker drones], surely supporting gay marriage is now playing into the hands of the Capialists?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.