Gay marriage in Australia

[krypton iodine sulfur]

My first wife was Kevin's Electorate Officer back when he was a backbencher, and spent a lot of her time 'babysitting' Kevin's children, particularly Marcus (the youngest son). I won't claim credit for successfully carrying out the strategy you suggest, but I, and to a greater extent, number one wife, certainly had some input.

How much would she charge for a few babysitting sessions for mojo? Or is it too late?

 

[bilby]

My first wife was Kevin's Electorate Officer back when he was a backbencher, and spent a lot of her time 'babysitting' Kevin's children, particularly Marcus (the youngest son). I won't claim credit for successfully carrying out the strategy you suggest, but I, and to a greater extent, number one wife, certainly had some input.

How much would she charge for a few babysitting sessions for mojo? Or is it too late?

It's far too late; I haven't spoken to her since our divorce - and that was over a decade ago.

 

[Rhea]

But in the end, mojo - you're wrong. And the way we know you're wrong is the enormous tide of change that your arguments do not divert.

Just because something is riding a wave of frothing populism does not make it right.

But your argument wasn't that it was "right" or "wrong" your argument was that it was not a cultural norm.
And you are proven wrong about that by the enormous tide of public opinion....

Nazi-ism rode one of the biggest waves of national populism in history. Ordinary people were scared to speak out against it, much like the average person is scared to speak out against the rigid and inflexible politically conformist acceptance of homosexuality as normal behaviour.

... that is entirely voluntary and enthusiastically loud. That's not a sign of ordinary people being scared. So you're wrong about that argument, too. people are EMBRACING this enthusiastically - even dyed-in-the-wool heterosexual breeders like myself.

Wouldn't it be ironic if science discovered that the _reason_ homosexuality occurs and increases in a population is a biological reaction to overpopulation? That it promotes the energetic and interactive participation in a population sans additional procreation? That it end up being a way that populations survive better while reducing numbers?

If homosexuality turns out to have some rational explanation then that would be interesting. It still would not imply that homosexual pairings should automatically be called marriage since there would be other hurdles to overcome such as accepting the change to the traditional cultural definition and also working out where homosexuality lies in relation to child adoption as these questions would still be unresolved.

Uh, no it would be just as resolved as it is today - with lots of data about homosexual couples in society and homosexual couples as parents.

You keep ignoring that we ALREADY HAVE data on what happens to societies that embrace homosexuality as one of the possible acceptable pair bonds. And that nothing NOTHING! bad has happened. People keep pointing that out to you and you keep charmingly pretending it hasn't been pointed out to you.

But at the present we don't even yet have a rational explanation for homosexuality. It is still a mystery and equally likely to be a recurrent aberration as to have a rational explanation.

Yeah, and it's EXACTLY LIKE other "aberrations" like males missing 12% of the genetic code on one of their chromosomes. We still keep 'em around, though, because we think they are okay. Or, like the abberation of left-handedness. Or curly hair. Or blue eyes. Curved fingernails, aversions to bitter taste, bow legs, height, extreme intelligence, and heightened empathy.


You keep saying that this one difference between humans is somehow different from all the other differences. And you sound like a desperate dude trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill.

Your arguments don't stand up. They are specious. You have offered NOTHING beyond "I find it icky." And I keep wondering what a bankrupt worldview spends so much time trying to outlaw things that you think are icky. It's bizarrely narcissistic.

 

[mojorising]

At this point, i have to say that you asserting it means less than nothing with respect to my even considering it a fact.

Nevermind Keith. It would be boring if everybody was on message with the PC new order. Just think of me as a thought-provoking diversion from the normal run of things.

 

[Ford]

At this point, i have to say that you asserting it means less than nothing with respect to my even considering it a fact.

Nevermind Keith. It would be boring if everybody was on message with the PC new order. Just think of me as a thought-provoking diversion from the normal run of things.

Yeah, never mind Keith. Raping boys is not a problem. Gay marriage? Huge problem!

 

[bilby]

At this point, i have to say that you asserting it means less than nothing with respect to my even considering it a fact.

Nevermind Keith. It would be boring if everybody was on message with the PC new order. Just think of me as a thought-provoking diversion from the normal run of things.

More of an Interesting Diversion from the Ideal Order of Things.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Today I learned there's a political push in Sweden ro remove legal gender completely. That solves all the transsexual/gay marriage/gay adoption issues in one go. I think it is brilliant.

Obviously its only the legal definition. People are obviously free to call each other whatever. They're not trying to ban gender. This is only about making life easier for everyone. It also does away with affirmative action based on gender. It makes it impossible to define marriage as anything other than just plain marriage. I aprove.

It is complete nonsense.

Men and women are very different animals.

When a male 30 year old teacher involves himself sexually with a female 15 year old student he is committing a very different and far greater crime than when a female 30 year old teacher involves herself sexually with a 15 year-old male student.

Let´s separate stuff. Let´s separate the legal from the social taboo. It´s never ok for a teacher to fuck a student. No matter the people´s ages involved. But do we want it to be illegal? BTW, in Sweden a 15-year old is sexually considered an adult. It´s not illegal to fuck a 15-year old regardless of the older persons age. A teacher fucking their student would get fired in Sweden. But it´s not a legal issue. Not at all.

What we need in this and other areas is more overt recognition of sexual difference, not less recognition.

But why involve the law? Why not let people sort this out on their own? Why do we need to involve the legal system in order to teach people how to behave? I´d say the gender issue is self-regulating. Those who think it´s important will act on that and those who don´t won´t.

There is good reason for discriminating against women when selecting individuals for roles in special forces and front-line fighting roles for the armed forces. There is nothing to apologise about here. It is recognition of the factual difference between men and women.

Well... I both agree and disagree. Yes, men and women are different. But being a soldier today is not what it used to. Social skills are just as important, or more important, than just physical strength. And women are good at socializing. I doubt you´ll argue with that? I agree with you that men and women are different. But that´s why we need both in the army. We make up for each others weaknesses. So I think it´s important to have both. In my professional life I´ve noticed that women make excellent managers. So I can imagine they also make excellent officers.

The Swedish army has plenty of women in it. About 10% are women. There´s no affirmative action. These women are there because they fought damn hard to get there. These ladies just love to fight. I´m just happy that I don´t have to. Soldiering is not my cup of tea. Not at all.

There is good reason for discriminating against men when selecting staff for childcare facilities as women have better evolved skills for these roles.

Same here. Men and women are different. I think it´s healthy for the children to be exposed to both male and female staff.

But I don´t think it´s binary. I think maleness and femaleness is on a sliding scale. It´s relative oestrogen to testosterone that counts. And some other hormones. Some men are more feminine than most women, and vice versa. So I think it´s silly to try to regulate behaviour based on just shape of genitalia. If we let people work with whatever they want, it´ll sort itself out IMHO. It´ll also solve the transgendered heach-ache. I don´t see the need to regulate this at all?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The victim impact is greater for the girl than for the boy.

This needs to be backed up by science. I call bullshit. We tend to overplay victimisation in modern society. We tend to reject mental health problems that arise naturally/randomly. We want to pin them on some event.

I also find it hard to believe that women would be worse at it than men. Women are naturally physically weaker than men. Wouldn´t that suggest that evolution has seen to it that they are MORE resilient to rape.

Women are evolved to protect their sexual reproductive capacity and be choosy about who they consent to mate with since their reproductive capacity is a constrained resource.

If true, wouldn´t women have evolved to be stronger than men? I can´t see there´s any logic to your arguments?

Men are evolved to look for casual sex on the side as well as to form pair-bonds.

Sexual promiscuity then is a greater social crime for a woman than for a man.

A boy's reputation is not impacted to the same extent as a girl's when they have sex with an older member of the opposite sex.

Again... back it up with science please. Science shows that men and women want to be just as promiscuous. Women just aren´t, because they are physically weaker. They take more a physical risk sleeping with a guy. That has nothing to do with evolutionary psychology. Yes, we have evolved the capacity for pair bonds. But we don´t stop wanting to screw others. So your theory falls apart.

Why it´s more of a social crime for women is a hold-over from the old agrarian society. I´ll bet that within the next 50 years that will be gone. The last hundred years that social taboo has been slowly eroding and now it´s almost completely gone. It won´t be long now. That suggests that it isn´t an evolutionary construct. It´s purely a social construct. And they can change.

A male teacher is exercising his male predatory sexual instinct against a minor.

A female teacher is exercising her female right to consent with a minor.

Quite different things really.

I think somebody here had a crush on his teacher? But please explain how these are different? I don´t get it. I think both are bad.

As far as I can tell, the only reason women don´t sleep more with younger men is for physical reasons. Younger men shoot too quick and they are clueless about how to pleasure a woman. A woman´s body needs more understanding than a male´s body for her to get off. So they´re less likely to have casual sex with a young guy. It´ll will nearly always have to start with educating him. But psychologically I haven´t noticed any difference actually. Both are just as damn horny for each other (annecdotal evidence).

A lot of guys can be sexually aggressive because they think it is expected of them. And then when they get home they just want to cuddle. This is a story I´ve heard from a lot of disappointed ladies. I get a feeling that everybody in the dating world is trying hard to be something they´re not. It´s a problem.

 

[Jokodo]

Today I learned there's a political push in Sweden ro remove legal gender completely. That solves all the transsexual/gay marriage/gay adoption issues in one go. I think it is brilliant.

Obviously its only the legal definition. People are obviously free to call each other whatever. They're not trying to ban gender. This is only about making life easier for everyone. It also does away with affirmative action based on gender. It makes it impossible to define marriage as anything other than just plain marriage. I aprove.

It is complete nonsense.

Men and women are very different animals.

Men and women have different group averages, but marriages are between individuals, not groups, so this doesn't help your argument at all. Even if you can demonstrate somehow that difference is an essential component to marriage (so far, this remains a baseless claim), the difference between the average man and the average woman doesn't help you to decide whether Ann and Sue or Ann and Pete are a better match. It is quite possible that Ann and Sue better complement each other by any set of semi-objective criteria you can device (unless you assume that it takes a penis to please Ann, which is I think something you really should leave to Ann to decide). It's quite irrelevant though since no-one is proposing compatibility testing along objective criteria as a prerequisite for marriage, and we already leave it up to the people involved to decide whether they're compatible. Restricting their choice is inconsistent.

When a male 30 year old teacher involves himself sexually with a female 15 year old student he is committing a very different and far greater crime than when a female 30 year old teacher involves herself sexually with a 15 year-old male student.

What we need in this and other areas is more overt recognition of sexual difference, not less recognition.

There is good reason for discriminating against women when selecting individuals for roles in special forces and front-line fighting roles for the armed forces. There is nothing to apologise about here. It is recognition of the factual difference between men and women.

There's good reason to select individuals with above average physical capacities (usually higher in men) and with the "right" kind of stress response patterns (there seems to be an average sex difference in stress response mechanisms, though with a good overlap). If those criteria are such that 5% of men and only 0.5% of women meet them it is to be expected that there'll 90% men in those roles, and assuming that the criteria are objectively justified for the roles, that's not discrimination there is indeed nothing to apologise.

But what you're proposing is totally not like that. What you're defending is not an objective set of criteria that just so happens to be met by men far more often than by women, but gender as the sole selection criterion.

That's like admitting anyone with a penis to the special forces on the grounds that, if you actually did the testing, it would turn out that more people with a penis than without qualify, i.e. a total non sequitur.

There is good reason for discriminating against men when selecting staff for childcare facilities as women have better evolved skills for these roles.

Tell me, the male primary caregiver of a child I have with a female partner who's currently working abroad, more about men not having child care skills. I dare you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

At this point, i have to say that you asserting it means less than nothing with respect to my even considering it a fact.

Nevermind Keith. It would be boring if everybody was on message with the PC new order. Just think of me as a thought-provoking diversion from the normal run of things.

But you're not provoking thought.
As i said, you're more like a creationist. You feel this is true, so you present it as truth.
Absolutely no support, but everyone who disagrees is part of a conspiracy to disagree.
Appealing to and demonizing science as it suits you....

Not a whole lot of thought involved.

 

[mojorising]

But what you're proposing is totally not like that. What you're defending is not an objective set of criteria that just so happens to be met by men far more often than by women, but gender as the sole selection criterion.

Maybe I did not express that clearly. What I meant was, it is to be expected that there will be a preponderance of men in the special forces and front-line combat roles due to the alignment of required skills with median natural talents so there should not be any wringing of hands if this is the case.

And vice versa for childcare and nursing roles.

As i said, you're more like a creationist. You feel this is true, so you present it as truth.
Absolutely no support, but everyone who disagrees is part of a conspiracy to disagree.

I think there is an element of truth to the notion of a fashionable media frenzy and political bias currently in the air w.r.t. the homosexual political agenda. It is like committing a thought-crime to voice any negative opinion about the validity of the political claims.

The science as it stands does not really back up either agenda so all we are left with for the time being is our opinion and the political game.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think there is an element of truth to the notion of a fashionable media frenzy and political bias currently in the air w.r.t. the homosexual political agenda.

It is like committing a thought-crime to voice any negative opinion about the validity of the political claims.

And who gets locked up for stating their opinion?
You still offer zip evidence for the idea that the masses are just afraid to support your side.

I will agree that the media tends to act like a shark pack. They smell blood and start circling.
But that's to sell papers.

If anything, the media would PROMOTE a frenzy, so they'll entice people to take contrary positions.
So your average homophobe would find plenty of opportunity to speak out, if that were truly the belief/opinion of the country.

The science as it stands does not really back up either agenda

That's adorable.
When you think the science supports you, you claim that science is on your side. Women evolved to rape younger men, men evolved to be the warriors, we evolved to pair bond except we also evolved to seek many partners, but we never, ever, never evolved to be gay.

When no one accepts your assertions, or they offer actual evidence, suddenly the science is neutral.

 

[mojorising]

Women evolved to rape younger men

Don't think I said that. I was comparing the gender-relative crimes and discriminating between them.

men evolved to be the warriors

True.

we evolved to pair bond

Probably true. Human babies require substantially longer post-natal care than any other species which favours pair-bonding to ensure prolonged protection of the DNA.

except we also evolved to seek many partners

Men are evolved sexual opportunists due to the relatively small minimum investment required for payback.

but we never, ever, never evolved to be gay

Well I would say there is a dearth of evidence in favour of that idea with a plausible explanation that does not require any favour from evolution but the jury is still technically out on that one.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Don't think I said that. I was comparing the gender-relative crimes and discriminating between them.

Afer some sexist babbling about evolution you said she had a right to consent with a minor. Since minor's cannot consent, that's rape.

men evolved to be the warriors

True.

Boudicca

we evolved to pair bond

Probably true. Human babies require substantially longer post-natal care than any other species which favours pair-bonding to ensure prolonged protection of the DNA.

It would also favor a more communal approach to child rearing, which you dismissed as nonsense.
You have no evidence to support your side or dismiss the other, just your assertions.

except we also evolved to seek many partners

Men are evolved sexual opportunists due to the relatively small minimum investment required for payback.

Again, assertions made with no evidence. And no explanation for how we evolved to and not to pair bond simultaneously.

but we never, ever, never evolved to be gay

Well I would say there is a dearth of evidence in favour of that idea

You can say that.
But you just seem to dismiss any evidence you dislike.

 

[mojorising]

Afer some sexist babbling about evolution you said she had a right to consent with a minor.

I was using the word 'consent' to contrast the female's generally more pliant role (without particular regard for the age disparity aspect) in sexual interaction with the male's generally more predatory role (again without particular regard for the age disparity issue).

I was not implying that the male minor could legally consent.

 

[Jokodo]

Maybe I did not express that clearly. What I meant was, it is to be expected that there will be a preponderance of men in the special forces and front-line combat roles due to the alignment of required skills with median natural talents so there should not be any wringing of hands if this is the case.

And vice versa for childcare and nursing roles.

And there will be a preponderance of men among the spouses of women, and vice versa a preponderance of women among the spouses of men.

That's not an argument to ban same-sex marriages altogether. Doing so is exactly like admitting everyone with a penis into the special forces unchecked, and not even the considering the application of the most accomplished endurance sportswomen for not having one.

No one is demanding a fixed quota of same-sex marriages, other than you with your 0% quota demand.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Afer some sexist babbling about evolution you said she had a right to consent with a minor.

I was using the word 'consent' to contrast the female's generally more pliant role (without particular regard for the age disparity aspect) in sexual interaction with the male's generally more predatory role (again without particular regard for the age disparity issue).

Ah.
But then again, if they evolved to be compliant, how do we get any predator examples?

I think you're confusing social standards and etiquette and claiming it's evolution.

Your whole approach to the evolution of the species and some traits found within it is a jumble of sexism and homophobia. And you've never once shown any reason that, even if it's true, it should inform our legal system and prevent marriage.

 

[mojorising]

No one is demanding a fixed quota of same-sex marriages, other than you with your 0% quota demand.

It is really just a political game at the end of the day. The practical legal problem can be adressed without redinfining marriage. The real issue is a push to have homosexuality viewed as an equally valid expression of the human sex drive as heterosexuality which I hold is a questionable demand.

But then again, if they evolved to be compliant, how do we get any predator examples?

They are relatively passive participants in the game of sex when compared with males not completely passive. Males are evolved to compete. Females are evolved to choose. Hence the male teacher's greater crime than the female teacher's. He takes sex. She gives sex.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nevermind Keith. It would be boring if everybody was on message with the PC new order. Just think of me as a thought-provoking diversion from the normal run of things.

But you're not provoking thought.
As i said, you're more like a creationist. You feel this is true, so you present it as truth.
Absolutely no support, but everyone who disagrees is part of a conspiracy to disagree.
Appealing to and demonizing science as it suits you....

Not a whole lot of thought involved.

I can't see any thinking going on either. It's all emotional argumentation. Deciding beforehand which science he should accept. Silly. But symptomatic of the trend toward anti-intellectualism going on

 

[Keith&Co.]

They are relatively passive participants in the game of sex when compared with males not completely passive. Males are evolved to compete. Females are evolved to choose. Hence the male teacher's greater crime than the female teacher's. He takes sex. She gives sex.

Okay, fine, whatever.
Does the law in Australia see it any differently?
Is 'sex with a minor' four different crimes, depending on the genders of the mature and immature participants? is there a graduated system, male on female predation, male on male, female on female, female on male?