Gay marriage in Australia

[funinspace]

Nice dodge…again who is going to force you to celebrate with them?

They have plenty of legal options available for their couplings. If they need more we can make more.

I can’t say how screwed up Australia is or is not on the topic. But in the US those couple have issues like being able to see their loved one in a hospital, or collecting benefits based upon their spouses work. Hardly a trivial thing.

Gay folk really need to 'get over themselves' as they say in the USA.

My hope is that the novelty factor wears off the 'fashionable issue' of 2015 before any further legal nonsense is perpetrated like in Ireland.

It is not a novelty, any more than interracial marriage or the woman’s right to vote were novelties. LOL on further legal nonsense…now even Mexico has joined the fashion...aka avalanche. The US will join with modern sensibilities within the decade with or w/o a Supreme Court ruling.

The moralists need to get over themselves, as it really isn’t their problem, their concern, nor does it impact them.

 

[Rhea]

They have plenty of legal options available for their couplings.

No they don't or they wouldn't be having problems acquiring them. They are definitely having problems acquiring them.

If they need more we can make more.

This is not a truth statement. You absolutely do NOT have any readiness to just make them more legal protections. You have stated clearly that you do not want them to acquire equality with or without the word marriage. The only thing that prevents this from being a case of you lying to us is that you first lied so thoroughly to yourself that you believe what you are now saying without question.

But I refer you to your own words. You do NOT want to just make as many new laws as are necessary for equality.

The marriage thing is just a political football they are using to try and see how far they can force society to bend over backwards (or should that be forwards?) for a minority and is a textbook exercise in lack of willingness to compromise.

You are absolutely wrong on this and it's steeped in such petty meanness that it's hard to believe.
You are really trying to sell the story that the whole movement for equality is about agitation for fun?

Do you think the same was true for the anti-slavery movement?
The women's rights movement?

Just a game people are playing to poke at society and try for a reaction?

What an incredibly mean and petty mind it must require to consider such a motive.

Gay folk really need to 'get over themselves' as they say in the USA.

They want equality, nothing more. And they deserve nothing less.

My hope is that the novelty factor wears off the 'fashionable issue' of 2015 before any further legal nonsense is perpetrated like in Ireland.

Human rights as "novelty." This is how you see the world. Wow.

Are you religious, by the way? Not that it matters, but I am curious because of the way you come to conclusions - how you decide you know things.

 

[dystopian]

My hope is that the novelty factor wears off the 'fashionable issue' of 2015

When my country (The Netherlands) became the first in the world to legalize gay marriage... you know, 15 years ago, the general public's response was an overwhelming 'Huh, I thought it was already legal? Well, guess better late than never!'

It wasn't even 'novel' fifteen years ago; and it certainly isn't novel now. Except, I suppose, to someone whos live in the middle of nowhere where they can pretend they're not living in the 21st century.

before any further legal nonsense is perpetrated like in Ireland.

Ireland is only the latest in a long list of countries that have or are in the process of legalizing gay marriage. Here's where it's currently legal and when the laws came into effect: The Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010), Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand (2013), United Kingdom (2014), Luxembourg (2015)

Besides Ireland, Finland and Slovenia have also passed same-sex marriage, with 2017 being when the law comes into effect in Finland while Ireland and Slovenia have yet to determine the date.

In addition:

• Mexico has declared same-sex marriage bans to be unconstitutional, 3 of its states have formally legalized them, and all other states recognize same-sex marriages performed within Mexico.
• Gay couples can get legally married in 36 states in the US.
• Same sex marriages have been performed in Colombia, and maintained as valid during court proceedings to try and overturn them.
• Same sex marriages have been performed in India, and recognized by the courts.
• Malta recognizes same sex marriages performed abroad.
• Vietnam allows same sex marriage ceremonies, overturning previous penalties on such couplings.

If you think this is some 'fad' that is going to go away, you are sorely mistaken.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You do talk a lot of bollix sometimes DrZoid but I like you.

I´m sorry history doesn´t agre with you. polygamy has been the norm everywhere but in the Christian west.

I think being against it is as preposterous as being against gay marriage.

Have to stop you there.

From a certain perspective it is preposterous I agree, but not as preposterous as a fella bunking up with another fella and wanting society to celebrate with him!

Gays aren´t wanting you to celebrate it with them. that´s not what marriage is about. The ceremony they can have already. They already call eachother husband and husband after they´ve had such a ceremony. They´ve most likely done that for millennia. Gay marriage is about legal protection for the financially weaker party in a divorce. It´s about having the right to visit their unconscious life partner in hospital. It´s about protecting their right to inherit if the person they´ve shared their entire life with dies.

Considering the existence of homophobia and potential homophobic relatives legalising gay marriage is more important than straight marriage. They need it a lot more than straights do.

 

[Jokodo]

They have plenty of legal options available for their couplings. If they need more we can make more. The marriage thing is just a political football they are using to try and see how far they can force society to bend over backwards (or should that be forwards?) for a minority and is a textbook exercise in lack of willingness to compromise.

Treating people as full humans is not bending backwards. Demanding to be treated as fully human is not lack of willingness to compromise.

Gay folkHomophobes really need to 'get over themselves' as they say in the USA.

Fixed it for you.

My hope is that the novelty factor wears off the 'fashionable issue' of 2015 before any further legal nonsense is perpetrated like in Ireland.

Discrimination by sex is legal nonsense. Barring same-sex marriages is discrimination by sex.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I really love the 'they're not asking for equality, they're asking for superiority so we deny them equality' argument.
It's just so bitchy.

At least the book where we learn 'If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk to go with it,' that has cute illustrations.
This is just alarmist, meaningless and wrong.

 

[mojorising]

Gays aren´t wanting you to celebrate it with them. that´s not what marriage is about.

They are demanding wedding services from bakers, photographers, chauffeurs even if the owner of the business does not agree that homosexuality deserves equal recognition.

What do you think about this?

Given the at best dubious nature of homosexuality's claim to be a fully valid form of human sexual expression do you think business owners should be penalised legally for declining services for homosexuals who want to shack up and have the event celebrated with the support of that business?

 

[dystopian]

Gays aren´t wanting you to celebrate it with them. that´s not what marriage is about.

They are demanding wedding services from bakers, photographers, chauffeurs even if the owner of the business does not agree that homosexuality deserves equal recognition.

What do you think about this?

"Oh no," cried the bakers, photographers, and chauffeurs in unison, "we're getting more money!? The horror!"

 

[mojorising]

^turning down money is at least principled even if you don't agree with the principles.

 

[dystopian]

^turning down money is at least principled even if you don't agree with the principles.

Principles? In this economy? I don't think so.

That said, if you have a problem with these businesses refusing to serve black people, then you don't have an argument here. No, the tired old "but homosexuality is *different!*" defense doesn't work when you're talking about someone baking a cake, taking a photograph, or driving someone around. People's sexuality is irrelevant to those things. In fact, we could argue that the photographer has more of an argument with refusing to serve black people because you can't tell someone is gay just by looking at someone but someone having black skin could totally mess up the color composition of their photographs!

I'm sure Australia has anti-discrimination laws in place preventing businesses from refusing customers on the basis of being either black or gay. Those laws likely impose fines on any business that does. Why should wedding-related businesses be exempt from this?

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>a fully valid form of human sexual expression<snip>

Could you please explain what this phrase is even supposed to mean? As far as I can tell, forms of human sexual expression falls outside the semantic domain of the adjective "valid" under any of its definitions, just like abstract concepts fall outside the domain of colour adjectives ("a purple idea") or non-living objects fall outside the domain of adjectives that describe states of consciousness ("a sleeping rock").

Your argument is not even wrong, it's just gibberish.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Gays aren´t wanting you to celebrate it with them. that´s not what marriage is about.

They are demanding wedding services from bakers, photographers, chauffeurs even if the owner of the business does not agree that homosexuality deserves equal recognition.

What do you think about this?

I think that people that open for a business shouldn't discriminate based on what they think other people are doing in their bedroom.

Same as bakers, florists, chauffeurs shouldn't be able to ruin MY wedding plans because they're racists.
Or make it more difficult for me to arrange a third wedding for my post-menopausal mother, because she no longer can produce children.
Or a second wedding for my dad because they're offended by his divorce.
Or aggravate any attempts to schedule my sister's wedding wehen they realize she's already pregnant.

You're there ot make a cake, not judge the people that are going to eat it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Given the at best dubious nature of homosexuality's claim to be a fully valid form of human sexual expression

What a load of bullshit.
Who gets to decide what is or isn't 'valid' sexuality? What's the criteria?

You have tried to judge sexuality by the possibility of producing offspring, but have not, to date, shown this:
1) to be a factual interpretation of our evolution
2) to be a useful interpretation of our evolution
3) to matter a damn in establishing the rights of individuals

There is no government office similar to the Food And Drug Administration, stamping 'Approved' on the missionary position, or oral sex, or anal penetration, or handjobs... There's no need for anyone who's not part of the pair to see the mutual satisfaction of any two consenting adults as more or less valid than any other practice.

 

[BarryM]

Claiming that your marriage is against someone else's belief is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you are on a diet.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hey, mojo, you've said that gay and straight couples are very different.
But in what manner are the differences noted?
WHAT is different?

If we had a transcript of a week in the lives of several couples, m/m, f/m, and f/f, but with the names and genders neutered (no Tom, Kevin, He, She, his or hers (except for the kids)) what clues would you look for in the transcripts to tell you which are straight and which are same sex relationships?

What's the give-away?

How they fight over when the kids get handheld electronics?
How they fight over whose parents to see over the holidays?
How they choose the vacation spots they go to?
How they split the chores in the household?
How they decide who takes whose name?

What's the difference? The great, huge difference you seem to see in the three configurations of couples? And what tells you they won't be found in the other two configurations as often as not?

 

[mojorising]

It is certainly possible to put forward all kinds of contrived rationalisations for homosexuality but at the end of the day it just feels wrong. It feels unnatural. I acknowledge that it is real but it curls my toes to imagine a fella getting wood over another fella.

I am totally in favour of society being grown up about it and tolerating these folk and even supporting them in their endeavours to have legal protections and supports for their arrangements but to ask society to accept that this sort of thing is exactly the same as a normal marriage feels like a preposterous imposition on a society that has already gone a long way out of its way to make these folk feel like they don't need to be ashamed of their condition any more.

For me it just does not work. It doesn't feel like the same thing. It feels qualitatively like a substantially different thing; mainly because gender difference is real and tangible and sexuality appears to have a natural function which has gone wrong in these people.

I can buy the idea of supporting them within reason out of a sense of brotherhood through shared humanity, but to consider their sexuality and couplings as equal to heterosexual marriage just does not fly for me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is certainly possible to put forward all kinds of contrived rationalisations for homosexuality but at the end of the day it just feels wrong.

'Contrived?' Where did you acquire the expertise to rebut/dismiss the experts' suggestions?

It feels unnatural. I acknowledge that it is real but it curls my toes to imagine a fella getting wood over another fella.

Mine, too.
Seriously, i have horrible subjective reactions to the thought of participating in a male/male sexual session.

I'm just not arrogant enough to think my disquiet equals a limit on the rights of others.

I am totally in favour of society being grown up

Just to the limit of your ability to grow up.

It feels qualitatively like a substantially different thing; mainly because gender difference is real and tangible and sexuality appears to have a natural function which has gone wrong in these people.

An entirely subjective phobic reaction on your part.
You've yet to provide a substantial difference.
Anal sex? Straight couples do that.
Oral sex? Not different, either.
Adoption? Nope.
Surrogates? Pretty much the same.
Single parents not providing the fantasy of a necessity for male/female providers/nurturers? Plenty of non-traditional examples there.

I can buy the idea of supporting them within reason

'Reason' would be equality unless you have an objective excuse to withhold it.
We've been waiting for simply pages and pages for you to provide one.

but to consider their sexuality and couplings as equal to heterosexual marriage just does not fly for me.

Then i guess you're stuck walking.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Gays aren´t wanting you to celebrate it with them. that´s not what marriage is about.

They are demanding wedding services from bakers, photographers, chauffeurs even if the owner of the business does not agree that homosexuality deserves equal recognition.

What do you think about this?

Given the at best dubious nature of homosexuality's claim to be a fully valid form of human sexual expression do you think business owners should be penalised legally for declining services for homosexuals who want to shack up and have the event celebrated with the support of that business?

Nothing will change. I did a little Google. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 it´s already illegal to discriminate on sexual preference in Australia. Today if a homosexual person would come in and say he wanted a wedding cake for his non-officially-recognised queer wedding it´s already illegal for the baker to deny him service on grounds of his flaming homosexuality. It´s already legal for gays to have a party and call it a wedding. They are already doing it behind your back. I promise. You just haven´t noticed.

So if it isn´t a huge problem now it won´t be a problem once gay marriages have been passed.

Nothing that hasn´t already changed will change!

I´m personally against most of these kinds of anti-discriminatory laws. If a shop owner wants to discriminate against a group they just will. They´ll keep doing it, but find some legal excuse to deny service. So these laws are stupid IMHO. Anti-discriminatory cases are always ludicrously retarded once you look at the accusations. It´s just sad. The people convicted are always just morons who meant well but just didn´t know better.

But there´s jobs and jobs. I do think open racists and homophobes should be barred against working in the medical industry and in the police force. They can be as racist and homophobic as they want. But the moment they make it clear they´re letting it influence their work, I think they should be booted swiftly out of the profession. It´s the moral values of the patient that are paramount, NOT THE DOCTORS!

But for all of those you mentioned above. Sure... let them discriminate to their hearts content if it makes them happy. I´m sure the fags would appreciate being told in advance that they´re not welcome. I´m sure there´s plenty of gay-friendly bakers who love gay money.

But like I said, gays are already protected by anti-discriminatory laws in Australia. It is already in effect and has been since 1986. And it´s never been illegal for gays to call their pair-bonding ceremonies for marriages. They are already doing it all over the place. Just a few years ago I attended a lesbian wedding in Perth. It had all the trimmings of a regular straight wedding.

 

[Rhea]

So mojo - now that you know that the cakes have been forced for thirty years without you noticing any problems, don't you feel a little stupid writing about how awful the effect will be on you at some future date?

It is certainly possible to put forward all kinds of contrived rationalisations for homosexuality but at the end of the day it just feels wrong. It feels unnatural. I acknowledge that it is real but it curls my toes to imagine a fella getting wood over another fella.

So you are really coming out (so to speak) and just saying that anything that makes you feel icky SHOULD BE OUTLAWED?
And you don't see how narcissistic and twisted that is?

That there doesn't need to be any evidence, no science, no social impact. If it makes ONE MAN, you, feel icky, then it should be banned.

Are you laughing when you write this? I'm serious asking that question. Are you really just pulling our leg? You acknowledge, straight up (pardon teh pun,) that the only criteria for outlawing a thing is mojo thinks it's icky?


Are you REALLY okay with that being a criteria for denying basic civil rights? Are you SURE someone won't call you icky and deny you the right to get a job?


Have you thought this through AT ALL?

Your idea is terrible. Rife with potential for abuse. Absolutely swimming in the likelihood of you finding yourself hoist by your own petard, standing in your own fart, brought low by your own folly.


See, that's the thing with laws. Adults think them through and ask whether the way it is decided is a universal way. If not, it's a bad bad bad idea. Most people know this. DON'T outlaw something that can be used against you unless you agree that the reason for the ban is more important than your own needs. You're saying here that you agree that if anyone finds you icky - anyone in your whole country - a law can be made to ban you from doing that thing.

You're SURE you want to argue this method for law creation?

I am totally in favour of society being grown up about it and tolerating these folk and even supporting them in their endeavours to have legal protections and supports for their arrangements but to ask society to accept that this sort of thing is exactly the same as a normal marriage feels like a preposterous imposition on a society that has already gone a long way out of its way to make these folk feel like they don't need to be ashamed of their condition any more.

Aaaaaahhhhhh. You want laws to make them feel ashamed of being gay.
You just said that. wow.

Let's think of some laws that meet those same criteria and see if you think this is a good reason to make laws.
ONE PERSON in Australia finds the thing icky.
ALL people in Australia should endure a law that makes all the ones who do it know that society (or at least the one guy, you know,) shames them.

What could possibly go wrong?

I'm trying to come up with some examples but I have a hard time because I just _don't_ have any need in my heart to go shaming people. So this is hard for me.

But I'll say this:

Please do not ever have any children
Do not work with children.
Please do not work or interact with vulnerable populations (homeless, mentally ill, disabled).
Please do not interact with the public.

Because I find your attitude icky. It makes my toes curl thinking of it. It is unnatural.
Can I get a law that bans you from holding a job or procreating?
It would be a preposterous imposition on society to do anything to make you think you don't need to be ashamed of your condition.

Really - it really is unnatural for someone to be filled with so much hate and fear as you are.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am totally in favour of society being grown up about it and tolerating these folk and even supporting them in their endeavours to have legal protections and supports for their arrangements but to ask society to accept that this sort of thing is exactly the same as a normal marriage feels like a preposterous imposition on a society that has already gone a long way out of its way to make these folk feel like they don't need to be ashamed of their condition any more.

Aaaaaahhhhhh. You want laws to make them feel ashamed of being gay.
You just said that. wow.

No, no. Mojo doesn't want them to feel ashamed of their 'condition.'
Rather, he thinks that the fact that we've removed the stigma should be enough for them. They should be satisfied by not being ashamed and shut up about asking for marriage equality or parental rights or being seen just like real couples.