muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 3:18pm:


Many families are dysfunctional and stresses can be created from a variety of sources - all this without gay parents.

Allowing gay people to adopt is not automatically create a bad environment, nor will it lead to more stress than a traditional family - just a different  source  of stress.  I don't think we should be attempting the pad the world in rubber foam in case someone gets hurt.

Paul keeting captured the absutrdity of homo marriage when he said: "You can't tell me that two jokers with a cocker spaniel amount to a family."
And even if you let the two jokers ado[pt a real kid, they are still not a family.

What is missing is the link to the past and the future. Homo life is a dead end by definition. Putting on costumes and charades of marriage, adopting children will not change that.
Why not marry your dog or cat or goat? (See edward Albee's The Goat or Who is Sylvia?)
What about three or four jokers and a couple of goats? Once you start the pretence that the absurd is not absurd but normal, there is no putting the lid back on.

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 5:36pm:

Marriage is about family, about past and future, as well as about the present. Homo marriage links into only the present. It is infertile as family, and therefore as a bridge between past and future.
Two jokers and a cocker spaniel are no different from two flamates and a cocker spaniel. And I am sure there are people arguing that a share house is a family. It is not.

Homos should - and the smart ones do - settle with having a different, often higher level of human relationship completely open to them - friendship.

It is really the only the unimaginative, lowbrow ones who agitate for the absurdity of homo marriage. If you respect them as individuals you owe it to them to point this out.

You need to decide whether you are arguing on legal grounds or social, historical, institutional grounds. If the latteer, you have a much, much biggeer thing on your hands.  Can't be jumping in and out between legal and the rest.

I am saying that marriage is not merely a legal contract because it does more than regulate the lives of those who are alive. It is an institution, in religion a sacrament. Both mean that it is beyond the mere here and know of law.
That it has kleegal status does not mean that it is fully grasped when its leegal aspects are comprehended.

The law is concerned with the individuals now, before the court, as it were.
Civil contracts between two men or two women would cover every legal aspect. It will not accommodat the social, sacramental aspect.
Agitating for the social contract between two jokers to be treated as if it was the equivalent of the social institution of marraige, briddging past andd future, or the sacrament of marriage which is a model of the relationship between god and man - that is absurd and unsustainable once laid out plainly.

so a legal contract for homos regulating financial and other partnership matters to achieve legal equality in these respects is sufficient. No need to get 'married' and browbeat everyone into pretending that they are just like a hetero married couple, or even a hetero de facto couple.
For one thing, you are not going to have a rich literary tradition on the basis of phallo-centrism and gynophobia of the most literal kind. And being an assophile is not something you want to reminisce about to your adopted kids either. 'Oh, when I was young I had it off with a dozen guys in the sauna in one evening' is not exactly caring for the next generation. Being 'gay' is far more sordid in most cases than even the most adventurous hetero skirt chaser can dream of.

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 6:49pm:



I am sorry if you do not see the difference between homo and hetero people. I think there is massive difference, which, if you like, starts with the small difference in prefernce for orifices, one for the holy of holeys, the other for the kyber pass next door. Yet from a little difference of knocking on one door or the other comes a massive divergence down the track. Our of one comes life, the other, only poo. If you can't see it, I cant make you see it.

Adopting orhaned nieces has nothing to do with being homo.
I have every respect for robust homos who claim respeect on the grounds of individual liberty. It is 'gays' I find objectionable. Gay is an ideology,  a 'life style' for god's sake!! homo is a personal stance, it has integrity. Gay is so... gay.
Homo has a tinge of the tragic, fully comprehended. But how can  a 40 year old grown up utter the words 'I am a gay man'  and expect not to be laughed at? Ridiculous.