Comments on: Queer logic http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/ "The thinking Laborite would as lief be found in bed with a cobra as in a committee room armed with 'arguments' from the Tory press." --- Truth, Perth, 19 June 1915. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:29:18 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: S Whiplash http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-2869 S Whiplash Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/#comment-2869 If you check your OED, I think you'll find that a marriage requires a husband and a wife. If in doubt you could then look up husband and wife. If you check your OED, I think you’ll find that a marriage requires a husband and a wife. If in doubt you could then look up husband and wife.

]]> By: Raena Armitage http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-2870 Raena Armitage Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/#comment-2870 What about people who made the choice to be childfree? I resent the idea that my only valuable role in the world is to pop a sprog or three. What about people who made the choice to be childfree? I resent the idea that my only valuable role in the world is to pop a sprog or three.

]]> By: Niall http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-2871 Niall Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/#comment-2871 One question. Is Alan Anderson married? One question. Is Alan Anderson married?

]]> By: Robert http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-2872 Robert Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/#comment-2872 No, Niall, he is not. Raena, I mentioned that. Third para. No, Niall, he is not.

Raena, I mentioned that. Third para.

]]> By: slatts http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-2873 slatts Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/#comment-2873 "We know that Australia's (and most Western nations', for that matter) birthrate is falling, because people don't want to have children any more. " Wrong. The birthrate is falling because people are having FEWER children. I know that postmodernism can mean whatever you want it to mean so a brace of bum-bandits are free to regard themselves as married. But the dictionary doesn't define it as such and neither does the law. And my understanding -- and that of 80 per cent of the population -- is that the relationship of sodomists is not marriage. For once I agree with Paul Keating who said: Two jokers and a cocker spaniel don't make a family. (Don't tell me, Rob, you're out of step with his snarkiness on this one?). But if you want to change the law, Rob, you're well placed to attempt it as a member of a major political party. Get the ALP to adopt it as policy. Better still, get Latham to run with it at the next election. As a major issue, along with an apology for things living Australians didn't do or have done to them. The gay marriage campaign is just another exercise by the wreckers who, if they ever got power, would make sure the poofs were in the front ranks in the long march to the salt mines. UK libertarian Sean Gabb sums it up best: "We may doubt if the present generation of socialists are sincere when they talk about justice, peace and good will between all people. But we can have no doubt of their immediate end. This is the destruction of the old social and political order - the overturning of its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes. Every autonomous institution, every set of historical associations, every pattern of loyalty that they cannot control - these they want to destroy or neutralise." “We know that Australia’s (and most Western nations’, for that matter) birthrate is falling, because people don’t want to have children any more. ” Wrong. The birthrate is falling because people are having FEWER children.
I know that postmodernism can mean whatever you want it to mean so a brace of bum-bandits are free to regard themselves as married.
But the dictionary doesn’t define it as such and neither does the law.
And my understanding — and that of 80 per cent of the population — is that the relationship of sodomists is not marriage.
For once I agree with Paul Keating who said: Two jokers and a cocker spaniel don’t make a family. (Don’t tell me, Rob, you’re out of step with his snarkiness on this one?).
But if you want to change the law, Rob, you’re well placed to attempt it as a member of a major political party.
Get the ALP to adopt it as policy. Better still, get Latham to run with it at the next election. As a major issue, along with an apology for things living Australians didn’t do or have done to them.
The gay marriage campaign is just another exercise by the wreckers who, if they ever got power, would make sure the poofs were in the front ranks in the long march to the salt mines.
UK libertarian Sean Gabb sums it up best:
“We may doubt if the present generation of socialists are sincere when they talk about justice, peace and good will between all people. But we can have no doubt of their immediate end. This is the destruction of the old social and political order – the overturning of its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes. Every autonomous institution, every set of historical associations, every pattern of loyalty that they cannot control – these they want to destroy or neutralise.”

]]> By: James Russell http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-2874 James Russell Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/#comment-2874 And my understanding -- and that of 80 per cent of the population -- is that the relationship of sodomists is not marriage. So if a man and a woman get married and their primary sexual activity is anal intercourse rather than vaginal intercourse, they're not really married? Or do you seriously believe anal sex is something heterosexual people just don't engage in at any point? And my understanding — and that of 80 per cent of the population — is that the relationship of sodomists is not marriage.

So if a man and a woman get married and their primary sexual activity is anal intercourse rather than vaginal intercourse, they’re not really married? Or do you seriously believe anal sex is something heterosexual people just don’t engage in at any point?

]]> By: vaara http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-2875 vaara Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/#comment-2875 As a "poof," I'd like you to explain why my having my 7-year relationship recognized by a town clerk will cause Western civilization to collapse. Are you suggesting that "society" (whatever that is, ask Margaret Thatcher) would be better off if we fudge-packers and muff-divers were to remain single and promiscuous forever? Incidentally, the first few paragraphs of your post could have been written by Osama bin-Laden himself. Which places you squarely on the same side as the Islamo-fascists. As a “poof,” I’d like you to explain why my having my 7-year relationship recognized by a town clerk will cause Western civilization to collapse. Are you suggesting that “society” (whatever that is, ask Margaret Thatcher) would be better off if we fudge-packers and muff-divers were to remain single and promiscuous forever?

Incidentally, the first few paragraphs of your post could have been written by Osama bin-Laden himself. Which places you squarely on the same side as the Islamo-fascists.

]]> By: Graham http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-2876 Graham Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/#comment-2876 Wee, a semantic argument. How dull. Wee, a semantic argument. How dull.

]]> By: Graham http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-2877 Graham Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/#comment-2877 Hang on, what was that I just read? "The gay marriage campaign is just another exercise by the wreckers who, if they ever got power, would make sure the poofs were in the front ranks in the long march to the salt mines." Slatts here, along with an earlier reference to "bum-bandits". "You and some of your correspondents are fond of colourfully bagging Andrew Bolt and that is your right. But how about holding back on the abusive rhetoric and attempting some critical analysis of his work. Then we will be able to see clearly why he is so wrong, out of touch, hysterically rightwing." Slatts in the letters to Crikey. Hang on, what was that I just read?

“The gay marriage campaign is just another exercise by the wreckers who, if they ever got power, would make sure the poofs were in the front ranks in the long march to the salt mines.”

Slatts here, along with an earlier reference to “bum-bandits”.

“You and some of your correspondents are fond of colourfully bagging Andrew Bolt and that is your right. But how about holding back on the abusive rhetoric and attempting some critical analysis of his work. Then we will be able to see clearly why he is so wrong, out of touch, hysterically rightwing.”

Slatts in the letters to Crikey.

]]> By: zoot http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-2878 zoot Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/02/27/queer-logic/#comment-2878 There's an interesting post on this subject from a linguist <a href="http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000496.html#more">here</a> There’s an interesting post on this subject from a linguist here

]]>