Gay marriage in Australia

[DrZoidberg]

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.

1) Why should they feel ashamed?
2) Why do you want to them to feel ashamed?
3) What are you hoping the shame does? Ie, the behaviour change the same leads to?

I must admit that I have no clue why you think a group of people having shame about something they can´t do anything about is a good emotion? I can´t see how it benefits anybody? Compare it with fat shaming. Overweight is something people can fix. Still, fat shaming doesn´t seem to lead to anybody losing weight. All it does is lead to sad fat people. Everybody loses.

 

[Sajara]

Ooh, I'm first in to post after the SCOTUS ruling!!! It looks like that silent majority mojo keeps insisting is there just got even more quiet.

 

[bilby]

Ooh, I'm first in to post after the SCOTUS ruling!!! It looks like that silent majority mojo keeps insisting is there just got even more quiet.

Well, to be fair, SCOTUS has rather limited authority in Australia, so their ruling will have less effect here than you might imagine.

Our silent majority seem to be represented by a very vocal but very small minority, who must be getting quite concerned by the lack of support shown by those they represent. It is almost as if they were not there at all.

 

[mojorising]

SCOTUS SCHMOTUS

Just because a judicial body in the USA has caved in to the political juggernaut (mixed metaphors aside) with a fawning press support does not change the principles of the argument.

I see homosexuality as an unfortunate aberration in sexuality to be tolerated and protected from victimisation. I don't see it as deserving of equal social or legal status with heterosexuality.

Not much point in rehashing the arguments. I understand the arguments offered in favour of homosexuality being seen as entirely normal and acceptable behaviour. I am just not persuaded by them.

I think an atmosphere of repressive political correctness has stymied the legitimate voice of dissent against the homosexual political lobby; however, I must take off my hat to the tactical way the manoeuvre has been executed by this minority group to take advantage of the opaque political dialogue and force a result. I think if they had been held off a few more years the legitimacy of the opposition argument would have become clearer and the hypnotising spell of the politically correct message would have lost its aura and the 5-4 decision could not have been achievable any longer.

I will be interested to see the social fallout from this decision over the coming years.

 

[DrZoidberg]

SCOTUS SCHMOTUS

Just because a judicial body in the USA has caved in to the political juggernaut (mixed metaphors aside) with a fawning press support does not change the principles of the argument.

Banning gay marriage is a pretty clear and obvious violation of the US constitution. I´m amazed they managed to keep up the anti-gay bullshit for as long as they did. What they did was to stop caving in to political pressure and finally decided to actually follow the law.

I see homosexuality as an unfortunate aberration in sexuality to be tolerated and protected from victimisation. I don't see it as deserving of equal social or legal status with heterosexuality.

Regardless of how true that may be, this was an issue on the constitution. It had nothing to do with gay rights as such.

Not much point in rehashing the arguments. I understand the arguments offered in favour of homosexuality being seen as entirely normal and acceptable behaviour. I am just not persuaded by them.

I think an atmosphere of repressive political correctness has stymied the legitimate voice of dissent against the homosexual political lobby; however, I must take off my hat to the tactical way the manoeuvre has been executed by this minority group to take advantage of the opaque political dialogue and force a result. I think if they had been held off a few more years the legitimacy of the opposition argument would have become clearer and the hypnotising spell of the politically correct message would have lost its aura and the 5-4 decision could not have been achievable any longer.

I will be interested to see the social fallout from this decision over the coming years.

Or maybe the gay haters are losing because they are the minority. That´s how things tend to work themselves out in democratic countries.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I see homosexuality as an unfortunate aberration in sexuality to be tolerated and protected from victimisation. I don't see it as deserving of equal social or legal status with heterosexuality.

You just won't get it, will you?
It's not 'homosexuality' that's won the court case here. It's homosexuals. People.
People are not to be 'tolerated.' People have or deserve to have rights.
Sexuality doesn't have or get rights.

As long as you keep thinking the argument is about respect or rights for a trait, rather than the people who have the trait, you're lagging behind.

I will be interested to see the social fallout from this decision over the coming years.

Massachusetts has had same sex marriage for over a decade. Anyone notice a 'social fallout?'
America's, what, the 22nd country to totally adopt SSM? Anyone notice a social fallout?

 

[Jokodo]

SCOTUS SCHMOTUS

Just because a judicial body in the USA has caved in to the political juggernaut (mixed metaphors aside) with a fawning press support does not change the principles of the argument.

Of course it doesn't. You didn't have an argument before and you don't have one now.

I see homosexuality as an unfortunate aberration in sexuality to be tolerated and protected from victimisation.

You've told us so. You've failed to give any reason why anyone should agree with it's an "unfortunate aberration" beyond "I find it it icky" (well, your problem, sorry mate) and "gay sex doesn't lead to kids" (neither does most straight sex, or any of the sex happening in a quite substantial number of heterosexual marriages).

I don't see it as deserving of equal social or legal status with heterosexuality.

Category error. "Homoesexuality" doesn't have rights, individuals have rights. Among others, the right to marry who they want to marry, provided that person wants to marry them, without having to ask you whether you think they're a good fit.

Not much point in rehashing the arguments. I understand the arguments offered in favour of homosexuality being seen as entirely normal and acceptable behaviour. I am just not persuaded by them.

It's irrelevant whether you find it normal, and you don't have to find it "normal". Legislating against something requires a better argument than "but, yuck!". You don't have one.

For example, I find it normal to dress at least moderately smart in an office context and reserve shorts for the beach or barbecues or, maybe, hiking. This means I come in in long trousers even when the outside temperature is in the thirties (C), and even though my office is directly under the roof, with no air conditioning. But It doesn't mean I run to management or lawmakers to demand action against colleagues who choose to come in shorts.

I think an atmosphere of repressive political correctness has stymied the legitimate voice of dissent against the homosexual political lobby;

The inability of the dissenters to make even one coherent argument is what's driven them to the margins. Repression has nothing to do with it.

however, I must take off my hat to the tactical way the manoeuvre has been executed by this minority group to take advantage of the opaque political dialogue and force a result. I think if they had been held off a few more years the legitimacy of the opposition argument would have become clearer and the hypnotising spell of the politically correct message would have lost its aura and the 5-4 decision could not have been achievable any longer.

It rather seems that the illogical position to hold up restrictions against same-sex marriage despite the glaring contradictions with the rest of the current body of law doing so entails is loosing its appeal.

I will be interested to see the social fallout from this decision over the coming years.

And when the US finally abolishes the death penalty, it will be interesting to see the social fallout of this decision over the coming years.

Alternatively, we could just look at what happened when the rest of the civilised world did so decades ago.

 

[Jayjay]

I thought Australia has had gay marriage since 1981:

 

[mojorising]

And when the US finally abolishes the death penalty, it will be interesting to see the social fallout of this decision over the coming years.

I did not see a death penalty thread.

Have we got one already?

I thought Australia has had gay marriage since 1981:

Is that from the new MM - Fury Road?

I have not seen it yet so no spoilers please.

 

[mojorising]

As long as you keep thinking the argument is about respect or rights for a trait, rather than the people who have the trait, you're lagging behind.

Surely that is semantic hair-splitting.

I argue that homosexuality does not deserve equal recognition with heterosexuality as relative forms of sexual expression in human culture.

Ergo: I argue that homosexuals (humans who exhibit homosexuality to the exclusion of other forms of sexuality) cannot always expect access to legal recognition for their homosexual activity when it is analogous with similar heterosexual activity i.e. pair-bonding legal structures

You pointing out their already recognised humanity does not add anything relevant to the argument.

 

[Jokodo]

I did not see a death penalty thread.

Have we got one already? <snip>

I don't know if we have. It's just the structure of your argument: if you really were "interested to see the social fallout [...] over the coming years", you could just look at all the places that have had same-sex marriage for years. It is not a novel social experiment, and your insinuation that we can't yet predict what will happen is as naive as an American saying we shouldn't get rid of capital punishment because doing so is a dangerous, unprecedented experiment - without taking into account the empirical evidence available from over 100 countries that have already done so, many of them 50 years or more ago.

 

[dystopian]

I did not see a death penalty thread.

Have we got one already? <snip>

I don't know if we have. It's just the structure of your argument: if you really were "interested to see the social fallout [...] over the coming years", you could just look at all the places that have had same-sex marriage for years. It is not a novel social experiment, and your insinuation that we can't yet predict what will happen is as naive as an American saying we shouldn't get rid of capital punishment because doing so is a dangerous, unprecedented experiment - without taking into account the empirical evidence available from over 100 countries that have already done so, many of them 50 years or more ago.

I already pointed out to him that my country has had gay marriage for quite a while now without any negative consequences resulting from it. Not surprisingly, he chose to ignore this fact. Just three more years and we'll have legal adults who have never lived under a legal system where gay marriage isn't legal. I'm guessing that the year they become eligible to vote will shake society up just as much as every other year after we legalized gay marriage; which is to say not at all.

 

[Keith&Co.]

As long as you keep thinking the argument is about respect or rights for a trait, rather than the people who have the trait, you're lagging behind.

Surely that is semantic hair-splitting.

No.
It's the entire point.
You're discriminating against some people for being different. It makes about as much sense as discriminating against left handedness.

I argue that homosexuality does not deserve equal recognition with heterosexuality as relative forms of sexual expression in human culture.

Would you also argue that being black does not deserve equal recognition with being white as relative forms of race in human culture?

Ergo:

Ergo schmergo.
Your conclusion is based on sloppy justifications.

You pointing out their already recognised humanity does not add anything relevant to the argument.

It's the entire relevant argument. You accept that they are humans, but won't give them equal rights as humans because of a trait you find objectionable, but cannot provide any evidence that it makes them 'different' in a legally significant way.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a funny one

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...-marriage-ruin-civilisation-science?CMP=fb_gu

 

[Keith&Co.]

I argue that homosexuality does not deserve equal recognition with heterosexuality as relative forms of sexual expression in human culture.

I suppose you would say that Downs Syndrome does not deserve equal recognition with an IQ test score of 140 as relative forms of human intelligence expression?

But then, what rights do those who suffer from Downs Syndrome lose?

I have a cousin. Far as I know, he's still got a right to free speech. Admittedly, he's not going to explain the pros and cons of antidisestablishmentarianism, but if he wants to say that RC is better than Coca Cola, he's got that right. Same as everyone else. Because the law isn't about the trait, it's about the person.

So. What sort of traits would you say are 'mistakes' like homosexuality, and what examples can you show of how those who suffer those traits lose rights?

Not privileges, mind. Rights.

 

[Rhea]

I think an atmosphere of repressive political correctness has stymied the legitimate voice of dissent against the homosexual political lobby;

Remember, "politically correct" MEANS the position that is likely to garner a majority vote and win an election. It MEANS that anyone who complains about PC getting in their way has a minority position unable to compete with a tide of public opinion. Remember, when you pull the PC card what it MEANS is, "goddamnit, why can't we just call them Kikes and kill them anymore!?" or "How come the broads are mad when we beat them? That is so offensive to me!"

The thing about your posts, even after all these pages is that you have offered zero argument for a legal reason that you finding a behavior icky means that your minority group gets to deny basic civil rights to those people who have that behavior.

You've been pressed again and again to argue what legal mechanism allows one person in a country to say "that is icky, it must be banned!" and you just come back once again with "it's icky! That's why!"

Can you get your head out of the homosexual porn peephole long enough to notice that you are being asked a legal question? We don't care if you think it's icky. That is irrelevant to us.

The question at hand is why are you denying the right to marry to certain people? FOR ANY REASON? Why do you think you get to say who they marry? Surely you can see how objectionable it is to deny marriage rights to part of your population?

Your argument so far goes like this:

I want to deny your right to marry if you cannot have biological children.
I want to deny your right to marriage if I think the way you have sex is icky.

And then you LEAP to; but some icky is okay (like 70yo men and 16yo women, or heterosexual couples having anal sex, or 70yo men having anal sex with 16yo girls), and some infertile people are okay (like couples with one or both partners known to be infertile or choosing to never have kids or geriatric marriages), but trust me, some aren't and I don't make sense but I should make a law and it shall be based on something that has nothing to do with my original argument!

We know you think male gay sex is icky (highly recommend you don't have it). We also know there is nothing there to base a law on. Nothing. You position is empty.

Other people do NOT think it is icky. The majority of people do not find it to be icky. Icky doesn't get to be a law and tiny minority icky has no place even in teh discussion of law.

I predict you will leap back again to "well I told you I think it's icky" and completely ignore the gaping wasteland of logic that lies between whether something is icky and whether citizens should be denied the right to marry because they do it.

 

[bilby]

Well I just hope the gays are happy now that they have provoked God's wrath.

And that God will apologise to the Solomon Islanders for his typically poor aim.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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?

I'm not sure if the Australian Constitution protects the 'free expression' of one's religion, but I don't quite understand how running a business is part of that religious expression.

A lot of my religious relatives are certain that the Catholics are going to burn in hell for following Satan. Some other relatives think the Mormons are going to burn in Hell for worshiping the wrong Jesus.
But none of them would bat an eye if asked to, say, make a wedding cake for a ceremony in a church they think holds a heretical position. It's their business, not their ministry. Baking, flowers, delivery, renting out the church basement, filming the ceremony, driving the couple away after the rice is thrown... Even if some aspect of the wedding bothers them ,they still cash the check.

I distinctly remember one wedding in town where the couple was already expecting before the ceremony. My uncle made fun of the sort of woman who wears a maternity wedding gown, and was quite upset about it. But he still did a very nice job on their wedding pictures and the album. Got a nice tip for selecting angles that hid the bump, too.


To me, a resentment of doing business that offends you religiously only matters if you're saying that making Straight Couple Wedding Cakes _IS_ your religion.
Which may be an avenue for the afflicted. It's my impression of new Age religions. You pick and choose the elements of every religion that appeals. So you can get a Catholic Ghost hunting Wizard, or a Mormon Lutheran Fairy Dancer.
Now, call yourself a Christain Baker Foundationist or a Florist Fundamentalist or whatever.

The only hard part is getting New Age taken seriously in court, but i'm sure that the growing liberalism in the court system will grow to accommodate the Limousine Love Literalist.

 

[bilby]

The Australian constitution describes our form of government and the means of its election, and not much else.

'Rights' don't enter into it.

 

[mojorising]

I think an atmosphere of repressive political correctness has stymied the legitimate voice of dissent against the homosexual political lobby;

Remember, "politically correct" MEANS the position that is likely to garner a majority vote and win an election. It MEANS that anyone who complains about PC getting in their way has a minority position unable to compete with a tide of public opinion. Remember, when you pull the PC card what it MEANS is, "goddamnit, why can't we just call them Kikes and kill them anymore!?" or "How come the broads are mad when we beat them? That is so offensive to me!"

The thing about your posts, even after all these pages is that you have offered zero argument for a legal reason that you finding a behavior icky means that your minority group gets to deny basic civil rights to those people who have that behavior.

You've been pressed again and again to argue what legal mechanism allows one person in a country to say "that is icky, it must be banned!" and you just come back once again with "it's icky! That's why!"

Can you get your head out of the homosexual porn peephole long enough to notice that you are being asked a legal question? We don't care if you think it's icky. That is irrelevant to us.

The question at hand is why are you denying the right to marry to certain people? FOR ANY REASON? Why do you think you get to say who they marry? Surely you can see how objectionable it is to deny marriage rights to part of your population?

Your argument so far goes like this:

I want to deny your right to marry if you cannot have biological children.
I want to deny your right to marriage if I think the way you have sex is icky.

And then you LEAP to; but some icky is okay (like 70yo men and 16yo women, or heterosexual couples having anal sex, or 70yo men having anal sex with 16yo girls), and some infertile people are okay (like couples with one or both partners known to be infertile or choosing to never have kids or geriatric marriages), but trust me, some aren't and I don't make sense but I should make a law and it shall be based on something that has nothing to do with my original argument!

We know you think male gay sex is icky (highly recommend you don't have it). We also know there is nothing there to base a law on. Nothing. You position is empty.

Other people do NOT think it is icky. The majority of people do not find it to be icky. Icky doesn't get to be a law and tiny minority icky has no place even in teh discussion of law.

I predict you will leap back again to "well I told you I think it's icky" and completely ignore the gaping wasteland of logic that lies between whether something is icky and whether citizens should be denied the right to marry because they do it.

I am not trying to deny them a right. I am objecting to their usurping of a tradition that does not belong to them.

The problems are that:
1. It gives them access to legal rights to adoption which I don't think they deserve
2. The underlying political agenda is to use the hijacking of the marriage label as leverage to get society to view homosexuality as normal when I think it is not normal; it is a defective manifestation of the human sexual instinct.
3. If it really is just about legal rights then amendments can be made to selected bits of legislation to extend the rights in that legislation from married couples to homosexual partnerships. But it is about more than legal rights. It is about the political goals of a minority.

At the end of the day homosexuals are doing quite well just getting society to accept and tolerate their behaviour within certain limitations.

Obviously we see homosexuality in different ways.

You see it as a normal expression of human sexuality and I don't. Science cannot tell us yet who is right but one day it probably will be able to provide a causal explanation of homosexuality.

The icky argument is that the vast majority of society is heterosexual and heterosexuals find homosexuality icky. We now tolerate homosexuality but that is not to say that we want it rammed down our throat (for want of a better metaphor). In return for tolerance and legal protection homosexuals could be reasonable about it and keep their business discreet. That is my honest view despite how jarring it might sound in the current politically correct atmosphere. Political correctness isn't simply about a majority view; it is about a false agenda being pushed to assert the notion of equality as an abstract political goal even though the things being compared are not equal.