London's Daily Torygraph editorialises favourably on why gay couples should have equality under law. It's an eminently sensible - and very well-written - casebuild.
-
About
Economic, legal, political and social commentary.
-
Categories
- Economics and public policy (1866)
- Uncategorized (1445)
- Uncategorised (1118)
- Politics - national (1000)
- Politics - international (624)
- History (397)
- Law (383)
- Life (383)
- Philosophy (383)
- Political theory (375)
- Society (300)
- Missing Link (269)
- Cultural Critique (262)
- IT and Internet (258)
- Media (232)
- Education (219)
- Humour (206)
- Films and TV (193)
-
Archives by Year
-
Posts by Author
- Nicholas Gruen (3063)
- Ken Parish (1440)
- Don Arthur (505)
- Paul Frijters (347)
- Mark Bahnisch (272)
- James Farrell (159)
- Tony Harris (152)
- Geoff Honnor (136)
- David Walker (124)
- Richard Tsukamasa Green (121)
- Fred Argy (113)
- Wicking (110)
- Wayne Wood (105)
- Rex Ringschott (95)
- Sophie Masson (67)
- Cam (63)
- Ingolf Eide (52)
- Scott Wickstein (43)
- Unknown (34)
- Chris Lloyd (33)
- Paul Bamford (aka Gummo T) (33)
- Stephen Hill (24)
- john r walker (20)
- Patrick (20)
- Rafe Champion (18)
- Saul Eslake (16)
- Shaun Cronin (16)
- Roop Sandhu (13)
- Dr Troppo (12)
- Peter Whiteford (12)
- Antonios Sarhanis (10)
- Bruce Bradbury (10)
- Backroom Girl (7)
- john Walker (7)
- Danielle McCredden (6)
- B Model Baby (5)
- Damian Jeffree (5)
- Gaby (5)
- Julia (5)
- Seamus C (5)
- JC (4)
- Luke Slawomirski (4)
- Paul Watson (4)
- James Wheeldon (3)
- Jen (3)
- Paul Martin (3)
- Darlene (2)
- davidsligar (2)
- ellenbroad (2)
- Mike Waller (2)
- David Coles (1)
- Joshua Gans (1)
- meika loofs samorzewski (1)
- Sam Roggeveen (1)

I put it down to the World Cup. Having defeated Australia at rugby, the Tory classes want to defeat Australian cultural influences as well, as in
No Poofters! (Pace: Monty Python)
The creepy conservative, David Brooks, had a similar (actually more forthright) piece in the NYTimes the other day. Amazing. If only the Dem candidates for Prez could be as conservative!
Why is David Brooks (is it the Atlantic Monthly/bobos in paradise guy) creepy? What am I missing?
Possibly Tim found the alliterative synergy between "creepy" and "conservative'; irresistible Wendy? No. You're right. Probably not ...:)
Actually, I found the Brooks NYT Op Ed piece - the one that Tim refers to - a bit creepy myself. Here's how it starts:
"Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.
But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to each other and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin."
Well, I acknowledge that's the theory 'n everything but I'm left with the feeling that Brooks lacks a certain breadth of possibility vision here. Far from supporting gay marriage I fear he wishes to make it compulsory - in order to tackle those no-doubt dreadful "spiritual suicide"
stats.
Apparently gay marriage is "against so much" Biblical teaching. I know of one line, in Leviticus, which is anti-gay -- and it's up for some debate over whether it actually does mean "God Hates Fags" (as the Southern Baptists are fond of asserting). Even that doesn't condemn gay marriage!
On re-reading the Brooks, I think Geoff is about right. So like I said, creepy conservative.