Gay marriage in Australia

[bilby]

The irony is that I would be very much in favour of support and protection for homosexuals in their pursuit of life happiness and the safety to have legal relationships and not be unduly discriminated against if they would back off this excessive presumption in hijacking and redefining the cultural tradition of marriage in an attempt to brainwash the population into not seeing any difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality when there is an obvious difference.

And it isn't just homosexuals looking to 'hijack' the word. Plenty of heterosexuals want to live in a world where equality isn't just a lip-service but an actuality. I wouldn't say we've been brainwashed, we're just decent human beings.

I don't know about that. I can be a total arsehole at times.

Still, it doesn't bother me if homosexuals get married.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow, this thread is just spiraling into every clichéd anti-gay argument possible, isn't it? The only thing I think we're missing is that it's anti-God to round it off as a big nice fat bag of every argument we've been hearing for the past 20 years or more.

The irony is that I would be very much in favour of support and protection for homosexuals in their pursuit of life happiness and the safety to have legal relationships and not be unduly discriminated against if they would back off this excessive presumption in hijacking and redefining the cultural tradition of marriage in an attempt to brainwash the population into not seeing any difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality when there is an obvious difference.

Any two things I. The universe, any two ideas have an infinite number of 'obvious' differences. Even two heterosexual marriages will have major and 'obvious' differences. The presence of mere difference is not important to the discussion. The importance is in the RELEVANCY of those differences.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I can be a total arsehole at times.

Well, a man can't be really good at something unless he really enjoys it.

 

[Rhea]

Wow, this thread is just spiraling into every clichéd anti-gay argument possible, isn't it? The only thing I think we're missing is that it's anti-God to round it off as a big nice fat bag of every argument we've been hearing for the past 20 years or more.

The irony is that I would be very much in favour of support and protection for homosexuals in their pursuit of life happiness and the safety to have legal relationships and not be unduly discriminated against if they would back off this excessive presumption in hijacking and redefining the cultural tradition of marriage in an attempt to brainwash the population into not seeing any difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality when there is an obvious difference.

You've got a weird fetish with a word.

As well as an abysmally poor understanding of the history of the word. Your grasp of english words completely lacks nuance, chaining their definitions to entry number 1 and ignoring utterly the subsequent 20 definitions all used regularly.

Luckily, it is not some "minority" that is understanding basic human decency and trying to protect it. It is a tidal wave of increasing majority that understands that marriage between any two consenting adults is a good thing to protect.

If you people who are all het up about those who are different would just open your eyes and spend all of your energy brainstorming a new word for "pair bonding between people who think two penises touching is rully rully icky" (we could call it, say "meanieage") then your problems would be over. You would not have to share space in the dictionary with people that you think are unworthy of legal protection. You could avoid the idea that your existence has not one iota of functional difference from that of a homosexual. Just go coin your own word, trademark it so that NO ONE can use it for any new definition and then you can sleep like little babies again. Seriously. It's a word. You don't get to legislate how it's used. Gay men could stand around you all day and chant "we're married, we're married" and there is not a thing you could do to stop it. You need trademark law for that.

And your real agenda of denying parental rights to homosexual men, and denying their children the protection of a two-parent home is so convoluted and contrary to your pious claims of safety that you become the enemy of the good. You think somehow that by preventing those kids from having their parent's protection you prevent them from living with those parents? Have you thought this through? Or are you one of those people who seeks to rip children from the arms of their parents as soon as it is discovered that they are gay? You like that feeling? Hearing the child shriek for its parent because you think you have a better parent in mind? Didn't your people do that to Aboriginal kids, too? Americans did that to Native Americans. Does that sound like the voices of triumphant angels in your ears? How caring, how sweet.

Again, I say; luckily I know, even though you and your ilk do not, that it is _YOU_ who are in the minority. And like the fate of the flat-earthers, society will evolve "correctly" to eliminate your hateful doctrine.



You are not a majority
Marriage has never meant exclusively what you want it to mean
You are utterly, scientifically, wrong about all of the fears you have
You are a shrinking minority seeking to harm people based on ignorant fear.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think they should be allowed to have children at all.

what would you point to as a precedent for denying them children?

We are in fairly new territory with this so a precedent is a bit difficult but the simple fact that homosexuals cannot produce children by themselves and children should not be part of a social experiment is good enough reason I would say.

I just noticed you missed the point of a 'precedent.'

It doesn't have to be a previous event where gays were prevented from having children.

I mean, do you have any historical examples connected to the ancient tradition of marriage where, to protect the ancient tradition of marriage, certain groups had their civil right and/or biological ability to produce children terminated?
Has anyone ever found an objective excuse to deny parenting to any group, for whatever reason, which would lend itself to supporting your claim we should be doing this for gays, too? And would that example be accepted by Australian society? This would be important, because they won't want to be compared to the THird Reich, if your only example is that the Nazis separated men and women Jews in the concentration camp, therefore we can justify keeping gays from kids.
Surely you see the problem there?

So.
Who in history, that's respected today, has done this 'separate unions for the purpose of preventing their reproduction' distinction?

If no one has, or if everyone who has done it is seen as a villain today, that might be what an advanced civilization might consider....a clue.

 

[Rhea]

Perhaps Mojorising* is jonesing for the good old days when Jews were forced to divorce women who did not bear them children, or force them to accept a second wife or concubine because bearing children is their only function in a marriage, after all.

“For She Was Barren”: Infertility as Grounds for Divorce

Dr. Yoel Shiloh

Ashkelon College

Isaac and Rebekah were married for twenty years before the birth of their sons, Jacob and Esau; Isaac was forty when he married (Gen. 25:20) and when his sons were born he was sixty (Gen. 25:26). Scripture ascribes this long wait to Rebekah’s infertility. [1] As a childless marriage is a topic discussed in Mishna and Talmud, we will bring the relevant discussions. [2]

The Mishnah (Yevamot 6.6) says that when a married couple is childless for many years, the husband must take another wife in order to fulfill the commandment to be fruitful and multiply: “If a man has taken a wife and been with her ten years, and she has not born child, he may not abstain [from fulfilling the commandment to be fruitful and multiply]. If he divorces her, she may be married by another man, and that man may live with her for ten years. [3] If she has miscarried, she counts [the period of ten years] from the time of the miscarriage.”

The Mishnah does not specify what happens to the marital relationship that has been barren; must the man divorce his wife, or must he take another wife in addition to the first one? [4] The Talmud (Yevamot 64a), however, presents a baraitha saying that the couple must dissolve their marriage: “If a man has taken a wife and been with her ten years, and she has not born child – he must divorce her and pay her the sum of her ketubbah, [5] lest he not have sons because of her.” This is also the ruling cited in Jewish law. [6] The Talmud go so far as to present an opinion that the couple must be forced to divorce, even though they wish to remain married without having children together. [7]

* This is really funny, by the way - what with "mojo" being another word for, well, I will quote the Urban Dictionary:

20 WORDS RELATED TO MOJO
swag game swagger cock magic mexican sexy mack sex flojo hoodoo love penis sex appeal voodoo wetback beaner cocaine jo libido

To be having all that RISING in the talk about homosexual marriage is quite funny.

 

[Keith&Co.]

To be having all that RISING in the talk about homosexual marriage is quite funny.

All I can see is the ZZ Top member Billy Gibbons appearing in Bones where he tells the FBI psychologist that in regards to 'mojo,' 'You misunderstand the term.'

 

[mojorising]

If you people who are all het up about those who are different would just open your eyes and spend all of your energy brainstorming a new word for "pair bonding between people who think two penises touching is rully rully icky" (we could call it, say "meanieage") then your problems would be over. You would not have to share space in the dictionary with people that you think are unworthy of legal protection. You could avoid the idea that your existence has not one iota of functional difference from that of a homosexual. Just go coin your own word, trademark it so that NO ONE can use it for any new definition and then you can sleep like little babies again. Seriously. It's a word. You don't get to legislate how it's used. Gay men could stand around you all day and chant "we're married, we're married" and there is not a thing you could do to stop it. You need trademark law for that.

The situation is a little more nuanced than you are suggesting.

The word has (at least) 2 referents.

Referent 1 - A heterosexual cultural institution involving the binding together of a man and a woman. This institution is closely (but not exclusively) related to the functional relationship between the sexes i.e. reproduction. There is lots of argument on the thread saying that the nature of this relationship has evolved significantly (mainly due to female cultural emancipation), and that is true, however, the core essential unchanging element of the definition has been that it is a bond between a man and a woman. It is a cultural institution and ceremony observed and celebrated by all cultures everywhere (some opponents want to debate this however I just don't see there being much counter-argument against this point). The pair-binding being celebrated is the result of the evolved pair-bonding behaviour of human beings. It is part of the nature of human beings and not an arbitrary social construct.

Referent 2 - A legal structure which has been incorporated into legal systems wherever they have evolved as part of the organisation of society. This legal structure naturally springs up to support the cultural institution. It describe the contract and rules that come into force in relation to the formation of a 'marriage'

There are significant differences between a homosexual partnership and a heterosexual marriage. Mainly around the biology of what is and is not possible when comparing '2 men' with a 'man and a woman'.

There has recently been social acceptance of homosexual relationships where none previously existed. Some homosexuals want similar legal structures to that of the legal notion of 'marriage'. I support this idea entirely.

Some homosexuals want the definition of heterosexual marriage changed from a 'man and a woman' to 'any 2 people'. I am against this proposition as I maintain that there are significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual partnerships and homosexuals should not be entitled to the same rights in relation to child-rearing (partly since we don't know what causes homosexuality yet). I think homosexuality is repeating developmental error (not a selected trait) which we will one day understand and be able to control (this is not proven but neither is the evolutionary explanation).

I am in favour of granting homosexuals substantial rights to enjoy life happiness. I am against changing laws to remove any distinction between heterosexual sexuality (evolutionarily developed for an obvious purpose) and non-heterosexual sexuality (cause uncertain).

Yes, I know that objections have been raised to some of the premises of this position. I think many of them are groundless or academic exercises but I will try to address each of them when I get time to work through the thread responses.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There are significant differences between a homosexual partnership and a heterosexual marriage.

Bet there aren't.

Name them?

Mainly around the biology of what is and is not possible when comparing '2 men' with a 'man and a woman'.

There are 'man and woman' couples that can and do use the same resources 'man and man' couples or 'woman and woman' couples do to acquire kids, and they have not changed the definition of marriage. So that's not a good reason to claim 'significant differences.

Some homosexuals want similar legal structures to that of the legal notion of 'marriage'. I support this idea entirely.

Not entirely. You would withdraw support from the 'raise kids' part of the legal notion of marriage. Don't be disingenuous.

Some homosexuals want the definition of heterosexual marriage changed from a 'man and a woman' to 'any 2 people'.

That's just it. It's not 'heterosexual marriage.' It's 'marriage.' They don't want to change the definition, just the parties allowed to participate.

I am against this proposition as I maintain that there are significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual partnerships

WHich you keep repeating but haven't supported.

and homosexuals should not be entitled to the same rights in relation to child-rearing

Which is an intolerable amount of discrimination.

(partly since we don't know what causes homosexuality yet).

Which is more than partly a stupid fucking reason to discriminate against them.

I think homosexuality is repeating developmental error (not a selected trait) which we will one day understand and be able to control (this is not proven but neither is the evolutionary explanation).

The science you DO NOT HAVE to support your position is still not a good reason to discriminate, no more than handedness, blood type, hair color, baldness or the ability to curl your tongue.

I am in favour of granting homosexuals substantial rights to enjoy life happiness.

I do love how you keep trying to brag about how much you don't want to discriminate against gays, as long as you're still able to discriminate against gays.

I am against changing laws to remove any distinction between heterosexual sexuality (evolutionarily developed for an obvious purpose)

You say obvious.
But you can't show obvious.

and non-heterosexual sexuality (cause uncertain).

Cause dinnae matter, laddy.
They're here, they're queer, they're citizens, let's cheer.

Yes, I know that objections have been raised to some of the premises of this position.

SOME?

I think many of them are groundless or academic exercises but I will try to address each of them when I get time to work through the thread responses.

No, you'll just keep repeating yourself, like you have for most of the thread.

 

[mojorising]

Just one more point Keith.

What about gay mardi-gras parades and gay pride marches.

Do you think sexuality (of any flavour) is a suitable subject for a public street parade?

I think it is not and it is one of the behaviours of the gay community that I find objectionable and which makes me inclined not to favour their claim for equal rights with heterosexual individuals and couples.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Just one more point Keith.
What about gay mardi-gras parades and gay pride marches.
Do you think sexuality (of any flavour) is a suitable subject for a public street parade?

Do you really think they're celebrating their sexuality? Or celebrating the fact that society no longer burns them at the stake for their sexuality?
Seriously?
That's why it's called gay 'pride.' Not gay libidos.
Not gay shove-the-sexuality-down-your-throat parades.

You take offense, but you are already keyed up to take offense at any notice of gays in public.

I support Gay pride marches. But then, i support Illinois Nazi marches (though i also laughed at the attack of the Bluesmobile). I wouldn't join either, but they have the same rights to march and be proud of something they accept about themselves.

That's the funny thing about being fairly liberal. I want to support all humans as humans.

Hell, if you want to organize a straight-pride march, i'll help put up the barricades.

I think it is not and it is one of the behaviours of the gay community that I find objectionable and which makes me inclined not to favour their claim for equal rights with heterosexual individuals and couples.

Jesus fuck, Mojo. I don't know about the Australian Constitution, or whatever you guys base your government on, but here, you do not have any sort of right to not be offended. You, or any person, or any group, being offended by the existence of one or more groups of human beings is not a sound, objective basis for any discrimination.

NAMBLA, as an organization, offends the shit out of me, but the people who make up the Association have the right to associate and the right to petition the government to change the age of consent. THey could even march, if they wanted, though i'd suggest a short march, through bright and roomy streets, with plenty of kevlar. but they still have the rights.

This is not an argument, mojo. It's not a point. It's you being homophobic and demanding that society adopts your stance just because.

It's not going to work.

I've asked before and will ask once more. How does two gay men being married affect you in any way?

 

[mojorising]

I support Gay pride marches. But then, i support Illinois Nazi marches (though i also laughed at the attack of the Bluesmobile). I wouldn't join either, but they have the same rights to march and be proud of something they accept about themselves.

THey could even march, if they wanted, though i'd suggest a short march, through bright and roomy streets, with plenty of kevlar. but they still have the rights.

Sexuality is a private business. We are not Bonobos. We are humans. Humans do not use sex as a general purpose social activity and it is not discussed in polite company (e.g. very risky subject to get into at work). Sexuality is not a suitable subject for public street demonstrations.

 

[mojorising]

How does two gay men being married affect you in any way?

It entitles them to a raft of further associated rights, some of which I do not believe they are entitled to (particularly regarding access to children). There is value in ring-fencing heterosexual marriage as an institution and legal structure and then dispensing other partnership rights to other sexualities in a controlled manner until we fully understand the causes and biological nature of homosexuality or whatever other sexuality is pursuing 'equal' rights since we don't know yet what cultural harm these aberrant (by my definition) sexualities may cause simply by being afforded a public perception of 'equality' and full 'normality'.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There has recently been social acceptance of homosexual relationships where none previously existed. Some homosexuals want similar legal structures to that of the legal notion of 'marriage'. I support this idea entirely.

Some homosexuals want the definition of heterosexual marriage changed from a 'man and a woman' to 'any 2 people'. I am against this proposition as I maintain that there are significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual partnerships and homosexuals should not be entitled to the same rights in relation to child-rearing (partly since we don't know what causes homosexuality yet). I think homosexuality is repeating developmental error (not a selected trait) which we will one day understand and be able to control (this is not proven but neither is the evolutionary explanation).

A few points:

5. It seems that you do not want the legal structures to be so similar, if you do not want to give gay men the same rights in relation to child-rearing (it seems you also want to remove some of the ones they already have).
6. It's not clear what your rationale for opposing the use of the word "marriage" in the case of two women is. Some clarification might be useful, so that those who reply to you don't need to consider several possibilities (e.g., if you hold X1, then Y1; if you hold X2, then Y2), which only makes the posts a lot longer than they would need to be if you could just explain what you actually hold.
7. You say "Some homosexuals want the definition of heterosexual marriage changed from a 'man and a woman' to 'any 2 people'." In reality:
7.a. There is no evidence of anyone who would want to change the definition in that manner, which would allow child marriage, marriage of people regardless of mental illnesses, etc. But that aside...
7.b. Many people - most of them heterosexuals - want to change the legal definition of "marriage" in Australia to include same-sex couples. That definition has already changed in many other jurisdictions, including the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Ireland (though it hasn't taken effect in Ireland yet), and part of the United States.
7.c. When it comes to the colloquial, non-legal use of the word "marriage", in English it already includes same-sex marriages, since most native English speakers would call a legally valid marriage between two women or two men who was celebrated in Canada, the United Kingdom, or Maryland, "marriage". In fact, that would be the case in Australia as well, even if those marriages aren't legally valid in Australia.
Now, while your semantic arguments are obscure, I guess you might be trying to say that Native English speakers who call those relationships (which are legally marriages in other jurisdictions, but not in Australia) "marriage" are making a mistake - at least if they're using "marriage" in the alleged colloquial sense in English -, so that even in the sense in which those people regularly use the word "marriage", those relationships are not marriages.
It would be akin to say that - for example - that if most Native English speakers claimed that it's morally good to criminalize homosexual sex, they would be making false claims, rather than using the expression "morally good" in a way that applies to criminalizing homosexual sex. But if that's what you're trying to claim (as I said, I do not know; your semantic claims and arguments are obscure), then you would have to provide some evidence of that - linguistic evidence about how native English speakers use the word "marriage" nowadays. The evidence seems frankly against your semantic view. Without any such evidence, trying to argue about how some words were used in connection with some pair-bonding relationships isn't going to work, since that would not be relevant to the claim you're trying to support.
8. Semantics aside, it's not clear which child-rearing rights you would want to take away from gay men. Does that include rearing their own biological children, or only the right to adopt?
9. Also, you have not explained why the causes of male homosexuality would be relevant in this context. When it comes to the child rearing rights of a man, what seems relevant is the psychological makeup of the man who intends to rear their children (apart from factors like money to sustain them, which are irrelevant to this debate), not what caused him to have the psychological makeup that he does have. So, knowing more about the causes would only be indirectly relevant, to the extent that it tells us something about the present psychological makeup, but there are much more direct ways of assessing a person's psychology.
10. Finally, you said earlier that you wanted to take the right to adopt away from gay men because of an allegedly increased risk of child sexual abuse, but then again, as I pointed out, you've not provided evidence of that increased risk, and in any case, even if you did provide it, the fact remains that statistically, there is also an increased risk from women to straight men, so there is the question of why you would accept subjected kids to the increased risk from women to straight men, but not to the alleged increased risk from straight men to gay men.

 

[mojorising]

Quick question for you Angra (maybe this should be a separate thread though)

If an orphaned baby boy was available for adoption and there were 2 couples applying for adoption rights. One of the couples was a heterosexual couple. The other couple was a male homosexual couple. All factors regarding income and accommodation and career background and criminal checks were the same for each couple.

Do you think preference should be given to the heterosexual applicants?

 

[DrZoidberg]

How does two gay men being married affect you in any way?

There is value in ring-fencing heterosexual marriage as an institution and legal structure and then dispensing other partnership rights to other sexualities in a controlled manner until we fully understand the causes and biological nature of homosexuality

What is the value? I can´t see any value. All I see is you wanting to marginalise and pick on a minority, just because they are a minority. To me you just come across as a school-yard bully.

Yes, sex is a private matter. But hiding their sexuality hasn´t worked for gay rights in the past. It´s not like they haven´t tried. And by trying to deny them their equal rights you´re just encouraging them. Once they´ve got equal rights and social acceptance I promise you all the gay pride activities will stop. Simply because they´ve then stopped being necessary for them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sexuality is a private business.

Sex is a private business.
You would have the law discriminate parenthood based on sexuality, though.
So that would have to be public or the government could not know how to keep chilluns from teh gays.

Humans do not use sex as a general purpose social activity

Where the fuck do you live, a monastery?
Sex is EVERYWHERE.

and it is not discussed in polite company (e.g. very risky subject to get into at work).

Just, according to you, in the distribution of and access to certain inalienable rights....

You're being incoherent.

Sexuality is not a suitable subject for public street demonstrations.

Another assertion, one that not everyone agrees with, so blow it out your chastity belt.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How does two gay men being married affect you in any way?

It entitles them to a raft of further associated rights, some of which I do not believe they are entitled to

Not an answer to how this affects, harms, or does any fucking thing TO YOU>

(particularly regarding access to children).

Not an answer to how this affects, harms, or does any fucking thing TO YOU>

There is value in ring-fencing heterosexual marriage as an institution and legal structure

Not an answer to how this affects, harms, or does any fucking thing TO YOU>

and then dispensing other partnership rights to other sexualities in a controlled manner until we fully understand the causes and biological nature of homosexuality

Not an answer to how this affects, harms, or does any fucking thing TO YOU>

or whatever other sexuality is pursuing 'equal' rights since we don't know yet what cultural harm these aberrant (by my definition) sexualities may cause simply by being afforded a public perception of 'equality' and full 'normality'.

Not an answer to how this affects, harms, or does any fucking thing TO YOU>

Is the question too subtle?

If you were to sue The Homosexuals like one of my countrymen, what could you show the judge as a reason to grant that you have standing in the court?
What harm do YOU experience that you need the court to provide relief for?
If testifying before parliament, what happens TO YOU if the gays get marriage?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do you think preference should be given to the heterosexual applicants?

You do notice that right here, you're making the sexuality of both couples a matter of public discussion in polite company?

Hypocrite.

"Your sexuality should be private and we're going to take away certain rights because you didn't keep your sexuality private.
And be sure to mark your sexuality down on the adoption form so everyone can know your private sexuality."


It's like Steven Wright naming his dog 'Stay.'
"Come here, Stay! No, no, Come here, Stay!"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Quick question for you Angra (maybe this should be a separate thread though)

If an orphaned baby boy was available for adoption and there were 2 couples applying for adoption rights. One of the couples was a heterosexual couple. The other couple was a male homosexual couple. All factors regarding income and accommodation and career background and criminal checks were the same for each couple.

Do you think preference should be given to the heterosexual applicants?

I don't. Why should one of the get a preference based on such an irrelevant factor? Why not just take their hair colour into account while you're at it? Blondes may be too dumb to remember to feed the kid, after all.