Wonderful--just bloody perfectly put.
Thanks for that.
The gay lobby isn't trying to legitimise homosexual relationships at all--that was achieved long ago. They're aiming at the destruction of the traditional Western family structure in order to wipe out any suggestion at all that homosexuality is aberrant behaviour.Part of the "moral relativity" rubbish that we're being force-fed.

Melanie
You have made a logical argument against the concept of gay marriage. I don't know how, but I would love to see this published in the mainstream media, even if it meant having a gay marriage reporter trying to debunk it. You have covered all the bases, an excellent piece of work.

Can I suggest Melanie that you use Google. The MA Court is headed by a woman born in S Africa who has publicly expressed delight that it led the way on such agreements.

I understand that in march 2003 complaints were made against Justice Marshall because of partisan appearances at Democrat fund raising events where she met with people from GLBT lobby groups. She has further expressed in public settings her policy on such matters, a priori; and it would appear the case was pushed through an open door.......I think you should read up on Justice Margaret Marshall. (I believe that is her name)

http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/3_March/031803_mn_complaint_against_justice_marshall.shtml

Melanie,

This is a fine, powerful article that deserves (as David Straface says above) much wider publication. I would love to see it appear in the Independent. That would cause them to choke on their pink grapefruit! I hope all readers of your Diary will do their best to draw it to the attention of friends, colleagues - and any 'opinion formers' they may have a handle on. I think you should email it to all MPs too. They clearly need a nudge in the genitals!

PS

Don't forget the Archbishop of Canterbury and all his brethren!

The chief justice who wrote the opinion of the SCOMA is the wife of Anthony Lewis, New York Times columnist. That explains a lot to me.

Wider publication than MP's blog? Impossible! Having said that, Melanie, much as we bloggers appreciate the exclusive on this seminal piece and the fact that you are providing gratis for us what you should be getting paid for, I do wonder why your paymasters haven't spread this one across their middle pages? Or don't they dare read this learned repository of current affairs and social comment?

A great set of words. I believe people should be able to practice their own sexual orientation but have always believed that there is a (sanctity) in marriage, that is concurrent with our general social values and is vital in terms of procreation within a social structure which has developed over the last few hundred years. Gay people should be able to formalise their committed relationships but, marriage should be for what it has always stood for: the union of man and woman for the creation of family and the progression of a (tolerant) society.

Quoting Chris Morris. "Homosexuals can't swim. They get up late. They 'muck about'".

Food for thought for us all there, I think.

An interesting discussion but it will probably go nowhere. Which doesn't matter because the decision in America provides a test case -- if in Massachusetts heterosexual marriage been destroyed in 5 years time then we'll know Melanie was right. And if incest is legal. If not, then we'll know she is talking rubbish.

Melanie,

Sorry to spoil the 'love-in' with your fans but you have used unsound facts, have added twisted logic and have then conjectured wildly about the consequences for traditional marriage of the introduction of same-sex partnership rights. Until 1967, homosexual relations were a criminal offence in the UK. In that year, they were legalised so that 2 consenting adults (of 21+ yrs of age - as opposed to 16 yrs for heterosexuals) could conduct sexual relations in private. Until the late 1990s, when the age of consent for gay men was at last lowered to 16, it was possible for young men of 16 to work, marry and have a family, to fight and die for their country - but still not legally to have sex with another man.

This was a pure case of prejudice - I am sure you would agree - and as you say you do not believe in discimination I presume you supported the lowering of the age of consent to parity with that of heterosexuals.

In fact, it is the current UK legislation governing relations between homosexuals that is - to use your word - 'genital'for it defines homosexuals solely in terms of their sexual behaviour and not in terms of their wider relationships.

The granting of same-sex partnership rights would shift the focus beyond 'genital politics' by introducing legislation on homosexual relationships as opposed to purely homosexual relations. None of this new legislation would affect the rights of heterosexuals to continue to enjoy (and benefit) fully from traditional marriage.

Heterosexuals have never, of course (fortunately for them) been defined legally purely in terms of their sexual relations. Marriage defines them as people, bound together in a loving relationship and with specific obligations. Same-sex partnership rights would give homosexuals access to SOME of the same provisions. Such rights would NOT however be the same as heterosexual marriage - which, as you say, has specific conventions, traditions, rituals and joys - and it is mere conjecture on your part to assert that the introduction of such rights would damage traditional marriage.

It is also false to state that all those in favour of same-sex partnership rights seek actively to damage traditional marriage. It is perfectly possible to hold a consistent position that simultaneuosly supports traditional marriage and favours the introduction of same-sex partnership rights.

Your portrayal of this debate as a 'war' in which just 3% of the population are allegedly seeking to undermine a vital institution that can be enjoyed by the other 97% turns logic on its head. Indeed, in a novel inversion of the concept of victimhood, you portray the 97% as being weak and vulnerable to attack by the other 3%. As someone who rightly denounces 'victim culture' - as do I - it is strange to see you employ it thus! If I was a married heterosexual I would be vaguely insulted by your assumption that I am a 'victim'.

You also hint that traditional marriage is in trouble for a number of complex reasons. But instead of exploring these and their causal relationships properly, you single out 'gay marriage' / 'same-sex partnership rights' as the chief culprit. I guess it requires less journalistic rigour - and is more popular with your readers - to scapegoat a gay minority that poses a mythical threat rather than to tackle head on the real reason for current health of the traditional marriage.

Your point about co-habiting sisters is a red herring. Unlike homosexual couples, they are most unlikely to ever be challenged about their relationship or asked to provide positive proof in the event of a challenge over shared habitation issues / inheritence etc. If they were, they would simply have to produce their birth certificates as a starting point of self defence. However, many homosexual partners have been victim to attacks on their relationships and have no way of even factually proving that these relationships even exist (ie there is no readily available documented evidence - such as a regustration certificate).

Long-term homosexual couples can try to protect some of their shared interest by use of 'private arrangements'. However, these do not cover all eventualities in terms of the needs for stability, security and dignity and tend to be expensive and complex (ie: the legal and management fees for establishing companies in two people's names to ensure joint ownership that is not challenged in the event of a death (NO, a simple will is not enough). Such arrangements are regarded by many homosexual couples as necessary evils - they know they are their only resort to protect themselves but they feel they are being forced into a kind of public deception about the real nature of their relationship).

No heterosexual couples have to face this because they can get married. There is therefore no justification for extending partnership rights to non-married heterosexual couples. The introduction of partnership rights for these heterosexual couples would pose far more of a threat to traditional marriage than the introduction of same-sex partnership rights. Politicians should be straight about this one but probably won't be given their cyncical electoral calculations about when or not to be honest.

Unfortunately, therefore, given the facts, it would seem that those who oppose the introduction of same-sex partnership rights are motivated by one or more of the following factors:

-- unfounded fears based on a lack of a true understanding of the issues involved;
-- pure simple prejudice;
-- 'denial' of the real causes for the decline of traditional marriage and an attempt to foist the blame onto an easy-target minority whose members are trying to improve the quality of their lives.

Given the rather extreme language employed in your last paragraph it is to be hoped that readers approach these issues rather more coolly and rationally.

No doubt about it, David, I'm loaded with pure simple prejudice. "Prejudice" because I've never personally experienced what I consider to be an obviously disgusting perversion of nature (using orifices intended for evacuation for intercourse) and a threat to human health (HIV/AIDS).

That said, I see no reason why the state should have anything to do with marriage. If states feel compelled to regulate such things, they should regulate civil unions (open to all) and leave it to the churches to decide who gets "married" in their buildings, by their officials and with their "blessing".

My own intention is to join in a loving civil union with my eldest son at the earliest opportunity and thereby avoid all inheritance taxes. A side benefit will be that, once I have convinced him to join me in some armed robberies, we will not be compelled to testify against one another.

At the end of the day we are simply becoming more tolerant. People are welcome to express their views but you will receive a negative response if you try to force them on other people and place legal restrictions on OTHER peoples freedom. What are most of us actually requesting? The right to live our lives as equals with others, respect that we should be allowed to make decisions about our OWN lives providing we aren't hurting anybody else.

This is why Defensiveness over PC sounds to me like people protesting too much - have the courage of your convictions and stand up for your point of view rather than getting upset when people disagree. It seems that these days if I argue in favour of tolerance towards people of different sexes, races, religions, sexual orientations or physical abilities then I am immediately labelled as some ignorant follower of PC or antimarriage fanatic rather than someone who actually believes in equality and does not want to judge everyone on the basis of one small aspect of their life.

If you disagree with homosexuality then you are homophobic, if you dislike people of different races then you are racist - why should you find titles so offensive when they encompass the beliefs you hold so strong?

Brilliantly put - I wish I could put my views in such a compelling and wonderfull way.

Jowett: The Modern university exists by consent of the world outside. We must send out men fitted for that world. What better example can we show them than classical antiquity? Nowhere was the ideal of morality, art, and social order realized more harmoniously than in Greece in the age of the great philosophers.

Ruskin: Buggery apart.

Jowett: Buggery apart.

Found through Atrios

Something that has rarely been considered in this debate is what impact gay marriage would have on the gay 'scene'- the lifestyle involving bars and clubs that many gay men take part in. Would it make a certain proportion abandon what can be an empty, promiscuous existence, resulting in less misery for those gays who do actually desire stability and companionship?

There's something richly comical about the Religious Right's horror of anal sex between men. It's even more comical considering that most them are doing it with their wives in the bedroom. Each to their own I say.

"Horror" is the wrong word, I think. "Disgust" and a profound sense of departure from holy scripture is what I think most religious conservatives in the U.S. feel. It's no laughing matter to them though others may find it condescendingly amusing.

So what? There are some things, it seems to me, so old and so intimate to persons - as opposed to governments - that they should just be left alone:
birth (before the foetus has legal recognition as a citizen), coming-of-age festivals, marriage, burial of the dead; these come to mind.

Of course getting the government out of marriage would deprive it of the ability to bribe potential voters with my money using the tax laws, so it'll never happen.

What quite likely will happen is I will be presented with a constitutional amendment here in the U.S. asking me to vote up or down on adding language defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

I will vote against it even though for me - and I emphasize "for me" - marriage is indeed the joining of a man with a woman.

If the Religious Right in the US don't like what's going on in the privacy of peoples' bedrooms perhaps they shouldn't stick their nose in. I know that the Bible comes down pretty heavily on 'Onanism', so are the masturbators going to burn in Hell too? The Church isn't kicking a stink up about that, is it?

Another excellent post, David.

I am with Melanie all the way on this one, but apart from that I have a few random observations on other contributors' posts.

'Homophobic' is a curiously misconstructed word. Both halves of the word are misapplied. A person who is arachnophobic is afraid of spiders. The logical meaning of the word homophobic is a person who is afraid of sameness. I am not! and by the way, I am not afraid of homosexuals either. Nor do I dislike or condemn homosexuals. However I do reject homosexuality as a biological and moral aberration.

The suggestion that there should be two kinds of marriage – civil and religious – has a certain superficial appeal, but it will be rejected by those who understand the meaning of marriage as it has been understood in the western world for many centuries. It is not the religious blessing that makes marriage a sacrament (for those who believe that that is what it is): it is the voluntary consent to lifelong and exclusive partnership made between a man and a woman who are each able and willing to give that consent and the consummation by sexual intercourse. What makes marriage special is the openness to procreation that it implies.

Finally, Onan: he was condemned not for masturbation as such. He deliberately spilled his seed in an act of defiance because he wished to avoid the responsibility of fathering a child on behalf of his deceased bother (the so-called Levirate law). His sin was therefore not the breaking of a prohibition. It was much worse: it was a deliberate abdication of a responsibility placed upon him by a positive commandment to raise up seed to his brother.

Theodopoulos: re your comment:

"no doubt about it, David, I'm load with pure simple prejudice. Prejudice because I have never experienced what I consider to be an obviously disgusting perversion (using orifices intended for evacuation for intercourse)and a threat to human health (HIV/AIDS)".

1) "I'm loaded with pure simple prejudice".

Yes, I agree: you are loaded with prejudice.

2) "Prejudice because I have never experienced what I consider to be an obviously disgusting perversion...".

Homosexual reltions are very varied. You have never experienced the practice of anal intercourse. No one is going to force you to do
so against your will - so, relax, you are free (in a free society) to peddle your knee-jerk reactions and prejudices as you wish on internet sites.

However, a few responses are called for:

Your own subjective reactions to the sexual practices of homosexuals are just that: subjective reactions. It is thankfully a vey big jump from your subjective reactions to the formulation of legislation...and the implication of your posting is that prejudice is a sufficient basis to justify the imposition of legal restrictions upon homosexuals which deny them their own freedom.

Using anal intercourse as the sole benchmark upon which to grant/deny homosexuals rights is as logically skewed as basing the granting/denial of right to heterosexuals purely on the basis of whether they conduct sexual relations purely for reproduction - which I understand is not the case.

In fact, this kind of prejudice is the basis for all sorts of double standards. For example:

-- there is a huge global problem with sex slavery which results in millions of women being kidnapped and being used as prostitutes against their will: by heterosexual men. However, I have not heard people condemning heterosexual men in general for these abuses...and it would of course be illogical and unfair so to do.

However, I have often heard people make remarks like yours and then make a leap in logic to making a generalised case that all homosexuals are disgusting perverts and then to calling for denial of rights to homosexuals.

A pure case of prejudice + double standards + discrimination in law.

Further, homosexuals cannot be defined purely on the basis of one sexual act (anal intercourse) that some do perform but many do not. Long-term homosexual relationships - like long-term heterosexual relationships - tend to exist for reasons relating to a depth of love and shared commitment that goes way beyond sexual relations.

In relation to your comments about HIV/AIDS: in case you have not noticed, there is an explosion of cases among heterosexuals globally because the virus can be passed via a number of activities practised by homosexuals and heterosexuals. To portray it as a 'homosexual disease' is inaccurate and is another case of you making a jump in logic from some specific observations to inaccurate generalisations about homosexuals.

Jonathan,

I have read your post carefully and understand your strong feelings in favour of marriage. However, I just cannot understand how you then make the leap in logic that the institution of marriage will in some way be affected by the introduction of same-sex partnership rights. Take your marriage (I assume your are married) or your children's future marriages. Why, exactly, will they be diminished by the introduction of same-sex partnership rights? Or do you believe that there are more vulnerable heterosexuals whose existing or future marriages will be adversely affected by same-sex partnership rights?

Can you please take some time to explain precisely how this would take place? I ask this because I am genuinely interested: no one who has talked about this threat has yet managed to spell out the details of exactly what it would mean in practise.

I think it is incumbent upon people with views such as yours and Melanie's - who seek to deny rights to people like me - to explain to us exactly how affording us rights that would offer our long-term relationships greater protection and dignity can possibly affect the rights that you already have...

Otherwise, we will conclude that it does just boil down to discrimination bases upon your own subjective views such as those in your post: "I do reject homosexuality as a moral and biological aberration".
Another question: given your views on homosexuality, do you think that homosexual relations should be made illegal? If so, could you please add to whose benefit this would be.

David

I did not say that 'the institution of marriage will in some way be affected by the introduction of same-sex partnership rights', so perhaps you will have to address this question to Melanie, who has argued the case very well in her original posting. It is in any case not the institution of marriage as such that is threatened, it is the whole fabric of society, of which marriage and the family are institutions that preserve and guarantee.

I am afraid you have got onto a very different question when you start talking about rights, and I am not going to argue about the philosophical basis of rights here.

My views on homosexuality are no more subjective than yours, so the point you make about subjectivity is not well received. You assume I am married. I will assume that you are a practising homosexual. (Is either of us any further forward for these assumptions?)

I do not discriminate against homosexuals, or indeed against any other group. I value every person as a person. That does not mean that I have to like everyone as an individual, or agree that their actions are good when I think that they are not. I am also well aware that my own actions often fall short, and for that reason, though I will say what I believe to be right, I will throw no stones.

Finally, do I think that homosexual relations should be made illegal? No, not every thing that is immoral or sinful should be made illegal. We had that situation in the past and no good came of it.

Jonathan,

I actually agree with you on the importance of stable marriage in relation to the fabric of society. But, as Melanie has argued quite rightly in other articles, it is some heterosexuals themselves who threaten marriage and the fabric of society through their failure to take proper responsibility for their children. Granting same-sex partnership rights (governing inheritance, property and pension rights) would not have any impact upon the 'fabric of society' - how could it?

My point about subjectivity is purely this: it is quite commonplace for people who express extreme antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexual relations to advocate that homosexuals should be deprived of certain legal rights (and there is no need to delve into philosophy to explore the source of rights).

I am not saying that you fall into this category of people and I am not asking to be liked. However, same-sex partnership would assist long-term homosexual couples to live with greater legal protection of many areas of their lives (inheritance, property, visitation in hospital etc) and with greater dignity. Married couples never have to worry about these matters in the same way. Granting such rights to homosexuals in long-term relationships would not weaken marriage or the fabric of society.

David, you are morally and intellectually far superior to your detractors and the host of this blog (what an obnoxious article). Fancy running for Prime Minister? You've got my vote.

David

I am glad that we can have this discussion in a civilised manner, and I understand that, unlike me, you do not buy into Melanie's analysis. I do agree with you that the fabric of society would be better served if some heterosexuals took their family responsibilities more seriously. I think that broken families are a partly a cause and partly a symptom of societal disintegration.

I have no problem with same-sex partnership rights. Those should be capable of being established by contract and the law should recognise them. But this is not really about same-sex partnership rights, is it? Marriage is not a contract: marriage is a status; but, for the last 150 years (at least) there has been a tendency to try to reduce marriage from a status to a contract; and this has been to the detriment of the fabric of society. This has happened quite apart from any consideration of homosexuality; but those who advocate marriage rights for homosexuals tend (and for all I know intend) to be part of this phenomenon, because they are helping to reduce marriage itself from a status to a contract.

I am not in favour of denying legal rights to homosexuals (or to any other group for that matter). However, the so-called right of homosexuals to marry is emphatically not a legal right. If it were, we would not be having this debate: we might be having a different debate, but we would not be having this one. But if the right is not a legal one, on what grounds is it being advanced? I suggest that the answer is on ideological (or in other words, philosophical) grounds.

Leaving aside any questions of morality, a heterosexual relationship is in principle fecund, i.e. open to new life and therefore outward looking: new life is brought into the world for its own sake, and is nurtured and brought to maturity though the selfless love of parents. A homosexual relationship is necessarily sterile, closed to new life and inward looking. I do not deny that many heterosexual relationships (whether married or not) fall far short of the ideal: I suggest, though, that homosexual relationships cannot even aspire to this, and like the worst kind of heterosexual relationships many of them are founded on the gratification of sexual desire. That some may rise to selfless love and commitment of one partner for another I will readily grant, but the same could be said for any non-sexual partnership or friendship.

Nevertheless, the more the motivation of a relationship is gratification, the less stable it is, because that type of motivation inevitably leads to the consideration of whether a greater level of gratification may be obtainable elsewhere. Anything that encourages that fissile kind of relationship is damaging to the fabric of society. The greatest bulwark against this has always been the traditional marriage of one man to one woman, to the exclusion of all others, till death them depart. This is why anything that waters down this idea of marriage, whether it is easy divorce or equal status for homosexual couples, has to be both wrong and dangerous.

Jonathan,

This IS about same-sex partnership rights as announced in this week's Queen's speech - nameely, the UK Government's intention to introduce a Bill for same-sex partnership rights.

It is a Bill that will aim to help long-term homosexual couples to overcome some of the difficulties they currently face in relation to inheritance, property ownership, next-of-kin rights (ie access to one's loved one in hospital which can currently be denied to non-blood relatives) which are currently in a legal vacuum. As a result, long-term homosexual couples face real challenges setting up all sorts of complicated and expensive legal arrangements to ensure that their relationship can be conducted with the maximum care for each other, and with dignity and protection.

Traditional marriage and same-sex partnership rights are completely unconnected.

It is Melanie who seeks to connect them in her article where she characterises the rights themslves and those supporting their introduction
as wishing to destroy marriage.

I cannot speak for everyone - but that is not my motivation - and there is no necessary causal link between the two.

Beyond that, your comments which seek to rank human worth and human relationhips according to the sexuality of those people are not directly relevant to whether these rights should or not be introduced.

Without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods.

A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.

What stunning insight; you've rumbled us. Like all homosexuals, I've devoted my entire life to destroying heterosexual marriage rights and toppling decent society. It was clearly the right thing to do and seemed the best possible use of my time. In addition to toppling decent society, we evil homosexuals are also busy shagging 50 other evil homosexuals a night (every night), while poisoning the NHS with our homosexual blood, which, as everyone knows, is pure unadulterated evil in liquid form. I trust you 'decent' straight people are all trembling with appropriate fear. After all, sanctimonious paranoia does seem to be the drug of choice for Melanie and her readers...

Isn't it time Melanie was spared from choking on her own increasingly deranged bitterness, and put away in some safe and comfortable retirement home for Daily Bile columnists?

May your god forgive you.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Because at the heart of gay ‘marriage’ is the belief that anyone who wants to marry should be allowed to do so ‘as long as they love each other’- Melanie

Do you mean only people like Britney who really lurve ought to be allowed to get married?

To Green Mark, Allen Anthony, Traill Stacey,

The flower of a blogger's wisdom needs more than one line to bloom