Recent attempts (also here and here) to vilify Tony Abbott for his views on gay marriage are shameful, especially when the same views held by Julia Gillard are generally ignored. The one thing advocates seem to want is a conscience vote for Coalition MPs and a party room vote for Labor MPs. I guess that advocates for gay marriage consider that such an arrangement maximises the chance of changing the law, but it does seem more than a little hypocritical.
It is not homophobic to oppose gay marriage. To be homophobic (in the sense of the word ‘racist’) is to consider a group of people (in this case, gays) as somehow subhuman. One of the disappointing aspects of public debate is the tendency to gradually widen the definition of words which have strong negative connotations and then use those words to label an opponent. The misuse of such powerful words then provides a justification to silence those ‘evil’ people. The general public, it is argued, shouldn’t hear from racists and homophobes.
This tendency of ad hominem attacks demeans the English language – there is a rich vein of words in the English language which can precisely describe actions, behaviours and viewpoints.
The practice also silences debate – accuse your opponent of being a homophobe and there is no longer a need to critically analyse his or her arguments. This is not to suggest that the meaning of words shouldn’t change – that is one of the wonderful aspects of the evolution of the English language. Rather, my concern is with the deliberate and inappropriate use of certain words which have strong connotations (and powerful impact) and which seem to rule out some topics from public debate and reduce one’s freedom of speech.
There are many appropriate uses of the words racist and homophobic, such as with members of the Ku Klux Klan and those who advocate the imprisonment (or even capital punishment) of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.
But to suggest that opposing gay marriage is homophobic is ridiculous. I oppose gay marriage for a number of reasons, but would support a state-certified gay partnership with equal status.
I think this moralising originates in the United States, where (despite, or perhaps because of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution), free speech is inhibited by such things as ‘diversity policy’ which make it illegal to offend anyone Many US university campuses use ‘diversity policy’ to put limits on free speech arguing that one shouldn’t be offended (although offending people who are opposed to diversity policy is apparently fine).
Penn and Teller make this point better than I can.
Like many post-modern constructs which achieve the opposite of their stated intent, diversity policy leads to less diversity.
If you support what is essentially gay marriage in all but name, why not give them that name?
David Elson
19 Apr 12 at 6:13 am
Because the raison d’etre of marriage is procreation and birth. Secondly, marriage is essentially a religious act.
Samuel J
19 Apr 12 at 6:17 am
I agree with those reasons, Samuel.
Basically I am sick and tired of being bullied by small vested interest groups over matters that shouldn’t even rate on the radar of life.
Gay marriage. I can’t even believe this is a serious ‘issue’. I am over gay friends posting militant links about it in my Facebook stream and assuming every intelligent person thinks it should be a fait accompli. Well, I don’t agree. It’s fucking self indulgent noise by spoilt western babies.
Play house for poofs. Boring.
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 6:28 am
And for gays of the religious bent who’d like to get married? And are having kids via artificial means (adoption, surrogacy)
David Elson
19 Apr 12 at 6:30 am
In regard to the reasons Samuel cites… It is entirely ironic that gays seek to assert their right to identity by erasing a millennia-held element of cultural identity that applies to straight people.
Hey celebrate culture, but not YOUR culture. Yeah, we get it, totalitarian weenies.
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 6:33 am
David, those people are also selfish, but that is in regard to the rights of children. Has been discussed here at length.
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 6:35 am
I agree that it shouldnt be an issue or indeed something that government can legislate (this does nt preclude gay marriage though).
David Elson
19 Apr 12 at 6:41 am
I cannot believe that the majority of gays and lesbians calling for gay marriage actually want to get married. It’s more about browbeating their fellow citizens, who they assume are stupid and cultured.
Well hands off our culture, arseholes.
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 6:48 am
Uncultured, of course.
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 6:49 am
“Because the raison d’etre of marriage is procreation and birth. Secondly, marriage is essentially a religious act.”
We can all think of reasons to justify discrimination against others. Perhaps you should stop women > 45 marrying (and, say men > 50), as well as the 60% or so of the population who are not religious.
conrad
19 Apr 12 at 6:56 am
I should caveat that last as people that go to religious services etc. where the data is mixed. In any case, almost 20% of the population adhere to no religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Australia
conrad
19 Apr 12 at 6:58 am
Agree with Abu. Hands off the culture of heterosexuals. It’s age-old and necessary; it is based on biological reproductive reality. It is enshrined in legal heterosexual marriage.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
19 Apr 12 at 6:58 am
Wow, it seems that just what the essential public purpose of marriage, and therefore just why the government has any interest at all in the fornication arrangements of consenting adults is now irrelevant and superseded by the rights of narcissistic adults. To listen to the proponents of same-sex marriage, the essential public purpose of marriage is so everyone gets happy snaps.
Life is not a Barbara Cartland novel of bulging biceps and throbbing bosoms….or, to be equal, bulging buttocks and throbbing penises or bulging labias and throbbing clitorises.
The essential public purpose of marriage is to bond the biological mother and father to their biological child/ren. It is not about rights, it is about responsibilities. That’s why a secular government has any interest in defining marriage.
Same-sex fornication is not procreative. Got an issue, sue mother nature.
Chrisse
19 Apr 12 at 7:00 am
How is it discrimination to say, no you two blokes are not getting married, grow up and stop being ridiculous?
How is it not discriminatory for gays to assert their cultural identities by arguing they have a right to trash a well established cultural identity (the sacrament of matrimony)?
This is just bullying, conrad, by yet another bullying self interested minority.
These relationships should be protected by law, but our culture should not be bullied into diluting itself yet again just to appease these infantile whiners.
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 7:02 am
I think many would be surprised at how many gay couples don’t really see it as an issue.
The big ones they see are financial and legal – especially relating to estate and tax
All (well most) gay and lesbian people came from parents, and most of these would have been married. In a lot of cases they respect the institution of marriage family that they grew up in and don’t seek to tear it down.
There would be a huge percentage of gay men over the age of 30 who don’t vote left. All that banging on from Labor about ‘working families’ doesn’t really have much in it for them.
brc
19 Apr 12 at 7:05 am
How about a compromise? Legalize gay marriage but apply the death penalty to infidelity?
Muahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa!
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 7:06 am
As it happens, I don’t think the government should marry people at all, but unforuntately there are many people that are not religious that want to get married, and this, according to conservatives, is good for them. So I must put up with that. For that matter, no party is willing to suggest that the government should give up on marriage and simply make it a social convention that anyone/organization can do if they like.
In any case, last time I checked, we were fortunate enough to live in a secular state, so all this stuff about religion is and should be irrelevant to what the government does. I’m also surprised that so many “libertarians” here care about the government marrying people. Surely if you don’t care about government, you shouldn’t care about things that they do when they are entirely voluntary at the level of the individual.
conrad
19 Apr 12 at 7:09 am
In fact, apply that compromise and make marriage compulsory for catamites and sapphists!
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 7:09 am
Conrad, marriage is about heterosexual culture as historically developed, not any individual reproductive situation or individual religous or sexual preferences, no matter how many people subscribe to it. Marriage does not require each married man and woman to reproduce, but it defines the inherent biological capacity of men and women to do so. Thus marriage is also about the cultural definition of the biological rights of children. Marriage is defined by biology and cannot exist without a man and a woman. Relationships of other sorts, in all their glory, can of course exist without marriage.
I could chose to love another woman, but she would never, ever, be the father of my chld. Nor can any man bear a child to another man. This has been debated a lot on Catallaxy already.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
19 Apr 12 at 7:10 am
I think this is spot on.
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 7:10 am
Well, David, from a religious perspective, if they’re practising gays then they would be sinners. If they are demanding the Church accept their Sins without repentence then I would consider them heretics.
Regarding things like surrogacy, the more I learn about that the less I like it. It is a dangerous path to wander on down as we have been, as it interferes with the natural bonds between parents and within families.
*obligatory disclaimer. As a rule I couldn’t give a toss what people get up to in their own home. Likewise if I go to gay bars then I’ll be exposed to things that I don’t necessarily go with. Where I draw the line, however, is where children are concerned and also where my Church is concerned.
nilk
19 Apr 12 at 7:13 am
@Chrisse. LOL First three lines and I knew it was you. You so rock!
nilk
19 Apr 12 at 7:14 am
Conrad – individuals, organisations and government implicitly and explicitly discriminate for a whole range of reasons, some valid others archaic and yet others based on fear and misunderstanding. A judge is expected to have legal qualifications – that’s discrimination against those who don’t. People discriminate when they choose their partners – often unfairly. Thankfully the government hasn’t yet decided to select our partners by some random selection process in the name of ‘fairness’. An attractive person has benefits not enjoyed by an unattractive person. That’s discrimination too. I favour an employee who is competent, hard working and reliable. That’s discrimination. I despise pedophiles – is that discrimination?
I do not support gay or lesbian marriage. Full stop.
Samuel J
19 Apr 12 at 7:14 am
Hey Chrissie, I think Barbara Cartland restricted herself to biceps and bosoms. Ooooh, what a feeling!
Takes me back to being a breathless fourteen year-old.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
19 Apr 12 at 7:22 am
There is no discrimination. Gay relationships are not marriages and never can be. They should, however, enjoy the same rights appropriate to their situation.
dover_beach
19 Apr 12 at 7:29 am
Samuel, I don’t generally mind the type of discrimination you are talking about. For example, if your local church doesn’t want to marry gay people, it’s no problem on by behalf. I don’t think they should be obliged to (no doubt some campaigners will). Private organizations should be able to do pretty much what they want in this respect.
Alternatively, I don’t think the government should be discriminating on some social convention they’ve instituted themselves as the master of, without very good reason, and things like:”there is a historical correlation between relgion and marriage” or “if you can’t breed you shouldn’t get married” are not particularly good reasons. They’re basically ad-hoc and if the government started applying reasons like this to everything, you would end with them doing anything they felt like for any old political whim. I want concrete reasons with tangible negatives like:”If you get married, it will lead to your inevitable ill-health”
In addition, it’s not the government selecting, it’s people selecting and then going to the government to ask for the governments seal of approval (the causal direction here is important). Odd I know, but if the government wants to do that as a favour to the populace, then they shouldn’t be discrimating.
conrad
19 Apr 12 at 7:36 am
Conrad, the argument isn’t “if you can’t breed you shouldn’t get married” but that a relationship, understood generally, that is and cannot be procreative is not marriage. There is nothing ad hoc about this objection.
dover_beach
19 Apr 12 at 7:45 am
Yes they are. They are not ad hoc, they are fundamental. To deny this takes us back to Abu’s point made early on – stop attacking heterosexual culture. The ‘concrete negative’ of Conrad’s position is that this attack on heterosexual culture is bad for children.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
19 Apr 12 at 7:47 am
DB — I quite like the idea of pensioners getting married, since it saves me tax dollars. Sure it’s not ad-hoc, but it isn’t applied consistently, so it’s clear people don’t accept that as a legitimate tangible objection. If the government wants restrict people above 40 getting married, I’ll rethink that issue.
I should say that I don’t really see marriage by government as different to any other service it provides — No different to say, allowing people into public parks. We wouldn’t think of weird rules to stop people doing that.
conrad
19 Apr 12 at 7:48 am
“stop attacking heterosexual culture”
I think this is paranoia. Stop worrying what other people do, your life will be far more stress free. People should do what they want within reason.
This reminds me of an argument I once had to endure between a drag-queen and a feminist, where the feminist was arguing that the drag-queen was stealing female culture (at least some weird version of it). Similar cultural arguments could apply across countries. Try not to wear other cultures clothes. It’s an attack on their culture. This latter actually does cause arguments (think Mike Tyson and his Maori tattoo).
conrad
19 Apr 12 at 7:52 am
The terms “Mother” and “father” will be replaced in Britain by “parent 1″ and “parent 2″, after lobbying from a gay rights group.
Presumably “husband” and “wife” will be erased and replaced on marriage certificates by “partner 1″ and “partner 2.”
daddy dave
19 Apr 12 at 7:53 am
What do you mean its not applied consistently? Its not meant to be applied to each particular marriage. It is what however distinguishes the marriage relationship from same-sex relationships.
dover_beach
19 Apr 12 at 7:56 am
No worries Condrad, I won’t be putting on a burka any time soon so I don’t have to worry if I’m stealling some shrouded woman’s thunder.
BTW, it’s not ‘paranoia’ to protect something that is valuable to you and which protects children. Yes, do what you want, but as you say, within reason.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
19 Apr 12 at 8:02 am
Gay marriage makes about as much sense as Living dead.
Driftforge
19 Apr 12 at 8:06 am
If marriage is provided by government it should be provided universally. To do anything less is to treat homosexual relationships as “lesser”, which does treat gay people as sub-human.
Culture is not rigid, it changes to suit society. Homosexual marriage is the next stage in the evolution of marriage. Marriage has changed from being about ownership of women, to being arranged, to being about love. Interracial marriage is acceptable now, when it once wasn’t. Marriage does not have one single definition that has been static over time.
What marriage, largely means in today’s society is that two people love each other and have pledged to stay together indefinitely. Marriage is seen as a more serious relationship than de facto status, it is a deeper level of commitment. There is social capital associated with marriage.
THAT is what gay couples want access to. Arguments about religion and children do not apply unless you preclude atheists and barren men/women from marrying. You don’t need to be married to have children, after all. And there are plenty of blended families where the children come from different sets of parents. Arguing that only traditional families should have access to marriage is already a lost cause. Divorce put the nail in that coffin a long time ago.
Gay sex is different to straight sex but it’s still called “sex” because it includes the core elements of “sex”. Gay marriage may be, in some minor ways, different to straight marriage but that doesn’t mean it can’t include the core elements of a marriage (love and commitment).
I don’t think churches should be forced to offer ceremonies to gay couples or, for that matter, couples that have fornicated or previously been divorced. But if the state recognises marriage it should recognise ALL marriage. Civil unions are not enough (especially considering they are legislated at the state level, whereas the Marriage Act is at the federal level).
I think some of the people commenting here need to realise that there is no “lifestyle” or “culture” about being gay for a lot of gay people. Many gay people haven’t been to a gay bar or pride parade in years. Many gay couples do the exact same things that straight couples do- the only difference being there are two people of the same gender. A gay relationship is slightly different to a straight relationship, but then again it’s different when divorcees get remarried, too. It’s different when when a native Australian marries an immigrant. I think our society can handle recognising a wide variety of relationships, even to the point of marriage.
Shem Bennett
19 Apr 12 at 8:09 am
I’m inclined to agree. Both sides of the debate vastly overestimate the impact this would have on society. Gay marriage will never be more than a minuscule fraction of marriages. The sky won’t fall in if this change gets made.
question: what are the costs of leaving the system as is?
And on the other side of the coin, what’s the worst thing that could happen if there’s a change?
daddy dave
19 Apr 12 at 8:12 am
The same might be said to AngryGayLeft activists who try to steal the culture of the 1950s-1960s American black civil rights movement to lend to their “struggle” some sort of historical significance and sense of moment.
Y’all need to stop that shit right now. What gay people in 21st century Western countries like Australia are going through is nothing like what the slaves and their Jim Crow ancestors went through, besides which it’s not your history and you have no right to appropriate it. It’s not helpful to your cause and it’s alienating people left and right.
You have no right to piggyback your cause off the suffering and death of black Americans and those who dared stand up for them.
You trash Christian tradition yet demand their support; you steal and in so doing disrespect black Americans yet demand their respect… and then you wonder why you don’t garner the “support” and “respect” you reckon you “deserve”?
sdog
19 Apr 12 at 8:12 am
Hey mate, tell that to the pouves.
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 8:12 am
Gosh, this topic gets a lot of runs at this blog….
steve from brisbane
19 Apr 12 at 8:17 am
So will mardi gras also become the gay, lesbian and straight (including Christian conservative) mardi gras?
Fairs fair, whiners.
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 8:17 am
People have been falling in love since the dawn of time. Love, including long-term marital love, is not a new invention.
daddy dave
19 Apr 12 at 8:18 am
I totally don’t agree with that one, Conrad.
Everything’s fair game. If I want to wear clogs, or a ninja costume, or an Indian headress, or an eskimo suit, I’ll do it.
daddy dave
19 Apr 12 at 8:19 am
Likewise, “the sky won’t fall in” if this change doesn’t get made.
It’s actually not been that big of a deal in US states like New York where it has been properly passed by the elected State legislature (as opposed to being imposed on an unwilling and unhappy electorate against their will), but this hang-up about demanding to co-opt the specific word “marriage” is in many places turning away the very people who’d more than likely be fine with State recognition of legal relationships which would be basically the exact legal equivalent.
sdog
19 Apr 12 at 8:20 am
“Gay marriage” is like fast trains & monorails… it gets a lot of oxygen when the government of the day (and their gang of useful idiots) is desperate to distract attention from more pressing issues.
sdog
19 Apr 12 at 8:24 am
Alexei Sayle had a great sketch about interest groups nearly 20 yeas ago. I think it was called, “shut up”.
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 8:24 am
Shem, what you say all sounds very reasonable in terms of a desire for recognition of relationship intensity, but it is also wishing on a star for the reproductive world to be otherwise: and it isn’t. “Sue mother nature” has already been suggested.
Love your partner and commit to them, speak that loud and clear to the world using your own terminology not that of heterosexuals, and enjoy the sex, but don’t imagine that it is reproductive sex. For it to be reproductive you have to adopt, the very nature of your same-sex relationships requires that. Accept it; you can never marry your bodies together and produce a child. That is what ‘marriage’ denotes (and it is denotation we are talking about here). You can be good adoptive parents, but that child has BIOLOGICAL origins and rights.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
19 Apr 12 at 8:25 am
Yep.
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 8:31 am
Isn’t the ideal here to simply privatise the act of marriage completely?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_privatization
JJP
19 Apr 12 at 8:33 am
Marriage privatisation would be fine. Then the government doesn’t have a monopoly on the word and gay couples could use it as they see fit.
As for marriage being about reproduction. It isn’t. You can believe it is, but it isn’t. Signing a marriage contract NEVER includes a clause that the couple involved must have reproductive sex.
There are so many situations where people are married without kids. And those marriages are meaningful. Marriage denotes commitment, more than it denotes kids. Kids are a separate question altogether. Unless you think that children of a one night stand had “married” parents (since their bodies were married together for that one night)…
To equate marriage to reproduction is an attack on what marriage means in society TODAY far more than gay marriage is.
Shem Bennett
19 Apr 12 at 8:38 am
FFS, not this insanely boring non issue again!
Rabz
19 Apr 12 at 8:40 am
You rusted on secularists are an interesting bunch aren’t you.
“I oppose gay marriage for a number of reasons, but would support a state-certified gay partnership with equal status.”
Never let illogic stand in the way of a good ideology.
Uber
19 Apr 12 at 8:40 am
I’m not sure about this. In the old days of ‘at-fault’ divorce refusing a partner sex was grounds for divorce as was not consummating the marriage. I suspect you’ll find that there was (is?) a presumption that sex was reproductive.
Sinclair Davidson
19 Apr 12 at 8:42 am
Rabz – yep. New thread of doom.
Sinclair Davidson
19 Apr 12 at 8:43 am
The above comment was made by this pastor after he tried to exercise his right to free speech. You can see some of the disruption here. (His talk was on a Christian view of human sexuality.)
Ellen of Tasmania
19 Apr 12 at 8:51 am
Just be thankful we’re not debating the Gold Standard or Foreign Policy interventions, Sinc!
JJP
19 Apr 12 at 8:53 am
I think opposing gay marriage is homophobic. I also think people should have the right to express homophobic views without legal recourse.
I also think, however, that heckling is “free speech”, too. Free speech doesn’t mean you have to sit and listen while others say things you disagree with. Free speech is just that you should have the LEGAL right to say things. At least the important kind of free speech.
Sitting and listening to the views of others and allowing other people to express their views publicly without disruption may be considered virtuous. But trying to stifle speech through non-violent means (such as heckling) isn’t the same as using government to do so.
Shem Bennett
19 Apr 12 at 8:56 am
I feel that fractional reserve banking leads to homosexuality and threatens our precious bodily fluids.
Ice Cream. Children’s ice cream.
.
19 Apr 12 at 8:58 am
Anyone who is prepared to spend more than a minute or two a day thinking about gay marriage has a very weird set of priorities.
Thats it for my day!
Rafe
19 Apr 12 at 9:01 am
Sorry Shem you feel strongly about this but it has been done to death on the cat, and I’m sure you’re just about the only gay dude here…there might be someone else but he can be very hard to follow.
The Government shouldn’t interfere in expression or private legal affairs nor should it discriminate.
(Gay marriage or civil unions ok (why the opposition to calling it marriage? bizzare) but NO marriage Act is the preferred option.)
.
19 Apr 12 at 9:02 am
Why is it that whenever anyone brings up procreation in a gay marriage debate, gm proponents suggest we should ban older women and infertile couples getting married? Please, I’m asking proponents who’ve used this false analogy to explain, not opponents to caricature. Do you not understand the nature of the argument, or are you deliberately trying to spin it to make us look like bigots?
What’s wrong with the observation that heterosexual relationships by their nature lead to childbirth, and children and families are in need of particular protections? Surely no-one disagrees with these points. And surely no-one disagrees with the observation that no homosexual relationship is capable of leading to childbirth.
What’s wrong with the observation that no-one (not even the couple itself) probably knows at the time of the proposed union that it would be infertile? and with the observation that some couples, after years and years of trying, will surprise no-one less than themselves by becoming pregnant and giving birth?
And as for elderly couples, at what age can you be sure that absolutely zero women in that bracket are unable to conceive? Even if its only one in a billion, it would be unreasonable discrimination in a way that preventing gm is not.
So these arguments about how infertile heterosexual relationships shouldn’t be entitled to marriage seem to come out of a desire to prove that gm opponents are bigots, rather than actually addressing the issues. If anyone has done that, or can do that, I’d be delighted to see it.
There’s also another argument I don’t get.
A union of two people seems inherently discriminatory; it’s picking a number out of thin air. A union of a man and a woman is simply a natural set: humanity comes in two varieties, male and female. In user interface design—and any concept designed to be easily grasped by a human being—there’s a “zero one many” rule, where you put none of something, one of them, or as many of them as you want. Heterosexual marriage abides by this rule and is natural and easy to grasp; homosexual marriage is inherently discriminatory, because it deliberately and explicitly refuses to abide by it.
Alexander
19 Apr 12 at 9:08 am
Name-calling and shut-uppery like this is not helpful.
Not content with alienating blacks and Christians, now you’re attacking homocons who don’t feel like marching to your beat?
Like I say: Not helpful.
sdog
19 Apr 12 at 9:09 am
Shem,
The only way you are going to get the church to endorse the union of homosexuals as “marriage” is to do what Henry VIII did when he wanted church endorsement for his divorce – declare yourself head of the church.
ella
19 Apr 12 at 9:10 am
A homosexual relationship cannot replicate the complementary nature of a heterosexual relationship. Men and women are different and physically complementary. Marriage highlights the union of those differences. Two different sexes, from two different families coming together to form another family. Historically, such families have been the building blocks of our culture. I think that’s one of the reasons that folk find the ‘homosexual marriage’ idea so confronting. It challenges the foundation of our cultural understanding, which is getting a pretty heavy battering at the moment.
Ellen of Tasmania
19 Apr 12 at 9:13 am
If only fundamentalists [both theist AND non-theist] spent more time examining their own emotively constructed ‘arguments’ they might come to realise our species evolved to a stage where, unlike most animals, it needed some form of stable long-term relationship if it were to survive.
If they understood the implications of this, some might even realise [and this shows my optimism at work?] that as technological advances led to rapid changes in our societies with which evolution couldn’t keep up, marriage had to become formalised regardless of any ‘instructions’ the varied deities may [or may not] have given them.
The affluence delivered via unsustainable growth in Western societies enabled us to subsidise all sorts of ‘noble’ causes; and ‘progressives’ happily continue to advocate policies which transfer costs to taxpayers. Sadly they don’t understand that ANY system which relies so heavily on what equates to a constantly growing inverted pyramid must eventually collapse.
On the other hand, careful analysis of both our own premisses and the logic of the ‘argument’ we believe lead to our desired conclusions is so painful we don’t normally go down that path. It’s far more comforting to rely on attacking our opponents’ shakier straw-men, and not think too carefully about our own beliefs.
Indifferent Agnostic
19 Apr 12 at 9:13 am
Ok Ok settle down, I know you are all dying to know what I think. And here it is!
Ooh Honey Honey
19 Apr 12 at 9:15 am
Humanity also comes in the varieties “connected ear lobes” and “separated ear lobes”. That doesn’t mean that we say only those relationships containing one of each variety are valid.
I believe that if marriage is going to exclude certain people from engaging in it, then it needs to be clear about what it is that constitutes marriage. I think that COMMITMENT is what constitutes marriage at its core. Therefore relationships lacking commitment should not be eligible for marriage (this is hard to police, but in principle this should be the case).
Others seem to think that procreation constitutes marriage. In my opinion if this reasoning is used to exclude gay couples it should also exclude ALL couples that don’t intend on procreating or that are unable to procreate. Your arguments that “situations change” and “maybe a woman that has had her ovaries removed could still have children one day” aren’t very strong, in my opinion. if procreation is the key factor in eligibility then the intention to procreate should exist at the moment of marriage.
Otherwise the criteria you are using for exclusion is being applied arbitrarily. That is the essence of discrimination and the state should not discriminate (though I’m happy for private individuals and organisations to).
Shem Bennett
19 Apr 12 at 9:16 am
I for one fully support gay marriage.
After all, why should the poofs spend their entire lives in blissful happiness? Share the pain!
Kaboom
19 Apr 12 at 9:18 am
This whole gay marriage thing has become boring. We heterosexuals usually don’t give a damn, but if the homosexual community keep carrying on like whiny children, they can expect us to get bloody irritated and then administer a damn good smacking.
Winston SMITH
19 Apr 12 at 9:20 am
No the role of government is to provide equal protection under the law. Government provides the legislative accoutrements to marriage, which itself pre-dates government.
It is highly inappropriate for a government to refuse gays the right to nominate next of kin, inheritor, and other legal status and protections as best suits them. It is also highly inappropriate for the government to fundamentally change a stable and beneficial institution older than itself.
This is important for two reasons: one, government should be limited, and two, laws regarding the two very different sets of circumstances need to be able to be modified to suit, separately from each other.
wreckage
19 Apr 12 at 9:21 am
Ella- some churches already accept the in-principle idea of gay marriage. You seem to think that there is only one Christian point of view on homosexuality. There’s actually myriad points of view within Christianity, some of which are accepting of both homosexuality and gay marriage. Not to mention non-Christian faiths.
I think churches should be free to make the call for themselves. The Catholic Church may never accept gay marriage, just like it may never accept divorce. Matters of doctrine should be the churches’ own domains.
Shem Bennett
19 Apr 12 at 9:22 am
I support gay marriage but I really think the gay lobby should settle for what people like Samuel is suggesting and then shut up about it for a while. It’s ultimately just semantics then. Also, opposing gay marriage is not necessarily homphobic. And why the double standards on Gillard opposing it? Is it because everyone expects her to be a gutless wench?
jtfsoon
19 Apr 12 at 9:22 am
I actually hate Gillard on gay marriage MORE than Abbott. At least Abbott is consistently conservative and has a faith reason for holding his position. Gillard is a secular, unmarried atheist. Penny Wong’s weasel “I support the party line” before the recent convention raised my ire, too.
As for accepting “civil unions” as a compromise. I don’t think civil unions will ever evoke the socio-linguistic connotations that “marriage” do. Of course if I had a civil union I’d probably just call myself “married” in daily conversation, anyway. But some people would still hold that my marriage is less legitimate until it has the same legal standing theirs does (which won’t happen while it’s governed by a separate level of government).
As for “opposing gay marriage= homophobia” firstly, I’m using “homophobia”, not as a slur, nor as “fear of gay people”, rather “discriminating by arbitrary exclusion”. I already pointed out why I believe opposing gay marriage sets an arbitrary point of exclusion. You may not agree with my logic, but on my logic opposing gay marriage IS arbitrarily discriminatory and I’m yet to hear an argument that will convince me otherwise. No-one I’ve talked to has been willing to bite the bullet and say “okay, childless couples SHOULDN’T be able to marry” which is what I’d require to believe their exclusion isn’t arbitrary.
Shem Bennett
19 Apr 12 at 9:35 am
Good Lord: you do realise what blog you are saying this on, sdog?
steve from brisbane
19 Apr 12 at 9:45 am
Jason – people like Abu here are also atheists who are opposed to it on what (I suppose) you would call culturally conservative grounds.
In fact, a significant number of those on this blog who argue for civil unions instead of redefining marriage are agnostic or atheists.
So I don’t see it as a cultural stretch at all that someone like Gillard might share both the same religious views and attitude to the definition of marriage.
Of course, practical electoral considerations (not aggravating unnecessarily) the relative cultural conservatism of Western suburb electorates may be affecting her stance as well, but I am just pointing out as a matter of logic you have other examples in front of you who are like her.
Of course, I accept that you just can’t be logical with Gillard.
And there was that brief period of rooting for Cain, which is best left unmentioned (except by me when I want to rubbish you.)
steve from brisbane
19 Apr 12 at 9:58 am
It’s amazing how quickly leftists get reduced to facile fuckwittery in lieu of an argument on this topic.
Shem above is a good example.
The argument in favour is that some homosexual couples who want recognised union just like heterosexual couples in the eyes of the state and by the same name miss out on the ‘romance’ of ‘marriage’.
I accept that some homosexuall couples romantically inclined might feel ‘deprived. That is understandable.
But it’s the only meaningful argument so far as I understand but I’d be pleased to be enlightened as to an alternative.
Two of the arguments against are that no great thinker in human history has ever before seen this as ‘discrimination’ in a negative sense and argued for it.
Ever.
Also as things have evolved marrigae and the family are long the backbone of western civilisation but have been undermined since the 1960′s with dreadful repercussions c/f the black family in particular in the US.
This will only accelerate the destruction of our traditional society and the replacement of state in lieu of parental care and authority.
Leftists want the state as the primary authority in peoples’ lives.
That’s why it’s a leftist issue masquerading as a homosexual rights’ issue.
The replacement of the the terms ‘husband and wife’ is merely an augur of dire consequences
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 10:01 am
Shut up Stepford.
.
19 Apr 12 at 10:04 am
If Shem is a lefty, so are John Humphreys, Tim and Andrews and I.
Please don’t slur people so harshly. Mud sticks.
.
19 Apr 12 at 10:08 am
Facile use of the term ‘homophobia’ doesn’t count as leftism?
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 10:11 am
Sorry but that’s not what this neologism means at all. The word was invented by homosexual storm-troopers to silence critics of the gay lobby by implying they were all secretly homosexual themselves. This is why heterosexual men fall over themselves nowadays to declare their passionate support for homosexuals. Ironically, they’re actually trying to ensure that nobody can smear them as gay. I call this the fag hag effect.
C.L.
19 Apr 12 at 10:12 am
The fact is that Howard used issues like gay marriage to wedge Labor and the latter responded by copying the conservatives.
From a strategic point of view, a more Liberal leadership team with a changed viewpoint would simply defuse this issue as a political weapon.
That’s why the focus is more on the right and its Libertarian wing.
Samson Agonistes
19 Apr 12 at 10:13 am
Steve, you supported Rudd and you’ve passionately supported Gillard – whose sex life makes Herman Cain look like Mother Teresa.
C.L.
19 Apr 12 at 10:15 am
It’s amazing how completely Rudd has disappeared.
And missed by but a handful of yesterday’s leftists in caucus.
Samson Agonistes
19 Apr 12 at 10:19 am
Shem, we ARE being clear about what constitutes marriage (see what I wrote at 9:13). Your trouble is that you don’t like that, and want to change it.
Ellen of Tasmania
19 Apr 12 at 10:27 am
I can only assume you repeat that lie because you think it’s funny to do so.
Quite apart from his sex life, Cain was a huge embarrassment of a half-serious, book sale promoting candidate who, for example, knew less about foreign affairs (and wasn’t concerned about it) than your average Catallaxy reader.
steve from brisbane
19 Apr 12 at 10:34 am
Yeah, if being a leftist means opposing hate-speech legislation and supporting Mitt Romney over Obama, then I guess I’m a leftist. I’d be hard-pressed to find many other lefties that would take those positions, though.
See, I’m NOT in favour of the state taking over from families and I agree that the welfare state has caused poor communities become trapped in poverty and that the lack of traditional family values has in many cases exacerbated that. I’m from a single parent family and my father didn’t pay a cent of child support while I was growing up. I’m opposed to having children without taking responsibility for those children.
BUT, I also think it’s important to look at society how it exists today. If two divorcees with kids remarry, even if they don’t plan on having more kids I think marriage adds a dimension of stability to their new, blended family. Similarly there are gay and lesbians who have children from previous heterosexual relationships and I believe their children would benefit from the stability of marriage in their new two-mum or two-dad families.
I also think that my aunt, who got married and has NO intention of having children is no more justified in marrying than I am. Her marriage was to prove her commitment to her husband and partner of 10 years. My marriage would be the same.
I also think that there are many gay couples that would make far better adoptive parents than the alternatives.
It seems many opponents of gay marriage have this ideal in mind of what a family should look. But in the real world there are so many types of families. Given all the types of families that exist, including childless couples, it is arbitrary to exclude gay couples from marriage.
The laws should change to meet the needs of society. It is a small “cost” to straight couples, but a large gain to gay couples in committed relationships. Marriage ISN’T just a word, it’s an institution. Reshaping that institution to fit the modern world will improve the lives of individuals at no real cost to society. Arbitrary exclusion is discrimination and should NOT be a part of government policy.
Shem Bennett
19 Apr 12 at 10:35 am
Stop derailing the thread, Steve. This topic is about gay “marriage”, it’s not about you or Cain.
Gab
19 Apr 12 at 10:35 am
Ellen, you’re not being clear. You’re saying marriage is about procreation, but you are only excluding gay couples from marriage. If you were being consistent you should bite the bullet and exclude ALL couples that have no intention of procreating from marriage.
Shem Bennett
19 Apr 12 at 10:37 am
It’s not a lie, Steve.
And don’t play your usual trick of posting a link to your blog where you criticised him once or twice.
Cain was literally a rocket scientist, Steve. He didn’t think Austrians spoke Austrian or that Great Britain fought a war with the Maldives. Your race-fuelled obsession with his sex life is in stark and dsturbing contrast to your indifference about Julia Gillard’s notorious past.
C.L.
19 Apr 12 at 10:37 am
Talk to CL about it, Gab. If he says nothing further on Rudd, Gillard or Cain, nor will I. Unless Jason does.
steve from brisbane
19 Apr 12 at 10:38 am
“Two jokers and a cocker spaniel isn’t a family.”
- Paul Keating on gay ‘marriage.’
C.L.
19 Apr 12 at 10:40 am
thats why i love tim wilsons argument on the issue
its great that he provides such thoughtful arguments in the press from a libretarians stance
ali hoggs action was silly and achieved nothing with tony abbott
the glbti community gets self indulgent and extreme with some of their arguments
selen234
19 Apr 12 at 10:41 am
Shem,
Please read again what I said. I’m NOT saying it is about procreation. And I AM being consistent, because I am saying it is about the complementary nature of a male and a female.
Ellen of Tasmania
19 Apr 12 at 10:43 am
See Gab, your calling off CL was too late!
CL – OK, you don’t think its funny: you’re just an idiot who lies casually.
steve from brisbane
19 Apr 12 at 10:46 am
No it’s not “arbitrary” Shem.
The institution of marriage has been an evolution but has been essentially stable for many thousands of years.
Sexism and racism are arbitrary and have been denounced since time immemorial by great minds.
Marriage has evolved from a oath in the eyes of the immediate community and usually in the setting of a religion to a formal state endorsed institution.
It is the backbone of the greatest human culture the world has ever seen and now a genius like yourself sees the light and describes it as merely “arbitrary” and unfair.
I repeat my earlier criticism of you: that’s facile and inane.
I suppose it’s progress in the strictly non-progressive sense to see that you haven’t repeated the leftist ‘homophobe’ slur on those who disagree with you.
Marriage has been the primary societal institution of birth and pedagogy in all of human history.
Now a few facile clowns want to redefine it with the minimum of fuss and slur those that oppose such change.
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 10:50 am
I think they should abolish re-marriage for heterosexuals.
If marriage is for life in traditional marriage, then if you divorce and re-marry you should only get a civil union.
Samson Agonistes
19 Apr 12 at 10:53 am
Marriage is the backbone of the Anglophile world?
Someone tell Henry Parkes or Thomas Jefferson!
.
19 Apr 12 at 11:02 am
That is the most sensible thing bob has ever said.
Infinite monkey theorem proof before our very eyes.
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 11:05 am
No skin off my nose if the definition of marriage is changed to include same-sex. I’ve never got the conservative / religious argument that it will ‘ruin’ traditional marriage, the fabric of society or whatever. Bollocks.
Still the GLBTI noisy activist types do make a terrible fuss about it, don’t they?
A good negotiatior will recognise a solid bargianing position here. the othey party are demanding a concession that really doesn’t cost us much, but have overplayed their hand in revealing how desperately they want it.
So give it to ‘em with a list of conditions:
• GLBTI must immediately cease any and all arguments and public displays of victim or identity politcs – you’ve got marriage equality now so STFU guys.
• GLTBI must undertake never to try and force their point of view on religious organisations (e.g, by trying to force them to marry gay couples) – respect diversity guys and gals. Of course there’s nothing stopping them forming their own churches.
• GLTBI must undertake to never try and push a mainstream GLTBI agenda on schools and kindergartens etc. Let parents handle the topic with their kids.
• And finally, on the topic of gay pride marches, Mardi Gras and whatnot. Knock yourselves out, but try not to shove it down the throats of families and children. maybe same the leather straps for after 9pm for example.
There, problem sorted. As a bonus, imagine the boost to the economy from the cashed-up gays’ pink wedding industry.
papachango
19 Apr 12 at 11:05 am
I also think that we should have kept dowries. If a husband had to pay for his wife he’d take better care of them. And the women folk would better realise who they belong to instead of going out and doing their own thing. That’s traditional.
Or if we’re not going for dowries parents should at least have a major say in who their kids marry. Marriages have been arranged for the majority of history and it’s only progressive lefties that tried to change it to suit their social engineering agenda.
Shem Bennett
19 Apr 12 at 11:07 am
…save the leather straps for after 9pm…
papachango
19 Apr 12 at 11:07 am
Opposing same-sex marriage is homophobic? Well, let’s play that game.
Heterosexual activity is the insertion of the penis into the vagina. The vagina is the source of life, with the penis providing the impetus to start the procreative purpose of heterosexual activity. That is the main purpose of heterosexual activity. Not orgasm. The penis can be stimulated to orgasm in other ways. The female design has her main source of orgasm external to this activity. The vagina itself is stimulated, but it is a lower level of stimulation, which allows for “repeat performances”, rather than the exhaustion that the male orgasm produces.
Homosexual males imitate the heterosexual activity by replacing the anus, the orifice for the expulsion of refuse from the body, with the vagina, the source of life. Homosexual male activity is offensive to women, is degrading to women. It is not just a rejection of sexual activity with women, it does so in a hateful and derogatory action.
Homosexual males can achieve orgasm in other ways. Why imitate heterosexual activity using the anus? Seriously disordered, heterophobic action.
Homosexual females at least, while absolutely useless for procreation, are simply getting it off.
Proponents of same-sex marriage are advocating for elevating the anus to the sanctimony of the matrimonial bed. Proponents of same-sex marriage are advocating for the further degradation of women.
Soon, I’ll start on the rights of the unborn and children.
Chrisse
19 Apr 12 at 11:09 am
No, there’s a logic to my position.
Marriage was to be for life and that’s why inter alia we had divorce courts.
You had to have good reason to end a marriage.
Marriage for heterosexuals is basically a la carte, so there are only two consistent positions.
One heterosexual marriage for life and no second chances.
Or marriage a la carte for all.
Samson Agonistes
19 Apr 12 at 11:10 am
The vagina is not the source of life; it is the source of male pleasure when it comes to sexual intercourse and otherwise I know not.
Ever heard of the clitoris, by the way, or was that left out of Vatican thinking.
Samson Agonistes
19 Apr 12 at 11:12 am
As for your conditions papa:
• GLBTI must immediately cease any and all arguments and public displays of victim or identity politcs – you’ve got marriage equality now so STFU guys.
Marriage and adoption and it’s a deal. There’s nothing else I want (and even with adoption it should be up to the agency in question to determine suitable parents). The gay activists pushing for hate crime legislation, etc can go shove it :p
• GLTBI must undertake never to try and force their point of view on religious organisations (e.g, by trying to force them to marry gay couples) – respect diversity guys and gals. Of course there’s nothing stopping them forming their own churches.
Agree. There’s already some churches that have favourable positions. Doctrine is for churches to decide.
• GLTBI must undertake to never try and push a mainstream GLTBI agenda on schools and kindergartens etc. Let parents handle the topic with their kids.
Let the decision be up to teachers and principals and sure. It shouldn’t be a part of a standardised curriculum, though.
• And finally, on the topic of gay pride marches, Mardi Gras and whatnot. Knock yourselves out, but try not to shove it down the throats of families and children. maybe same the leather straps for after 9pm for example.
I agree that it’s polite and respectful to do so. Kind of like how it’s polite not to have sexually explicit billboards in populated areas where kids could see. That said it shouldn’t be regulated against, either.
Shem Bennett
19 Apr 12 at 11:13 am
Have they?
Amd parents forcing their beloved children to marry people they are not suited to was the norm also?
Parental approved or in some instances arranged marriage point to the importance of the institution of marriage to society as the instrument of renewal and true progress.
Are these facile points all you have in lieu of an argument Shem?
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 11:14 am
Chrisse- do you want me to link you to websites showing that anal sex isn’t exclusively homosexual..?
Male-male anal sex has nothing to do with copying heterosexual vagina intercourse, though, and has everything to do with a little thing called the prostate. The prostate has copious nerve endings that cause pleasure when it is stimulated, much like the clitoris and glans of the penis.
Always makes me wonder… if homosexuality isn’t natural why did God make the prostate so sexually sensitive….?
Shem Bennett
19 Apr 12 at 11:17 am
Shem I’ll throw in adoption for a couple more conditions:
- the same-sex parents must undertake to provide regular contact with a role model of the other gender.
– parents must undertake not to indoctinate the kid into being homo – i.e. be completely supportive of their sexual orientation, which isn’t a lifestyle choce anyway.
papachango
19 Apr 12 at 11:19 am
Really?
Fur is said to sexually stimulating when applied to the skin and God made sheep shaggers so presumably sheepshagging is perfectly natural?
‘Facile Shem’ – use it as ur moniker.
It fits
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 11:23 am
“the same-sex parents must undertake to provide regular contact with a role model of the other gender.”
If single parents are required to do the same…. I don’t think this should be legislative, but it is possible something for adoption agencies to look at. Amongst all the other factors of suitability they look at before placing a child.
“parents must undertake not to indoctinate the kid into being homo – i.e. be completely supportive of their sexual orientation, which isn’t a lifestyle choice anyway.”
I think this is pretty obvious. Looking at surveys and studies of gay families this isn’t even highlighted as being a problem. It only exists as a phantom in the imaginations of straight people. I can’t even imagine gay parents throwing their kid out of home for being straight like straight parents do with gay kids…
Shem Bennett
19 Apr 12 at 11:24 am
Erm I think that’s “gay”…
.
19 Apr 12 at 11:25 am
That a loving homosexual couple can provide a wonderful upbringing whilst a married couple can damage a child is noyt in dispute Shem.
why it weould be ‘facile’ to suggest otherwise.
That the optimum for children is the nuclear family is also not in dispute.
That a society that venerates marriage is a more successful soociety is also “obvious”.
Who is pedalling furiously in their mind’s eye to further their emotionally centred position, I wonder?
Not.
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 11:33 am
daddy dave:
Gay marriage will never be more than a minuscule fraction of marriages. The sky won’t fall in if this change gets made.
I agree that gay relationships (they can never e marriages) “will never be more than a minuscule fraction” of long-term relationships.
Shem Bennett:
As for marriage being about reproduction. It isn’t. You can believe it is, but it isn’t. Signing a marriage contract NEVER includes a clause that the couple involved must have reproductive sex.
Sorry, but it is. The relationship would not arise if we did not reproduce sexually. You might as well argue that eating serves no nutritional function because we might sometimes eat something without nutritional value.
In my opinion if this reasoning is used to exclude gay couples it should also exclude ALL couples that don’t intend on procreating or that are unable to procreate.
It doesn’t exclude gay couples from forming long-term committed relationships in either case. It simply distinguishes the marriage relationship from this other relationship.
Jason:
It’s ultimately just semantics then.
Not at all. One relationship can naturally produce a child and the other cannot. I don’t think this difference is merely semantic.
dover_beach
19 Apr 12 at 11:34 am
“That the optimum for children is the nuclear family is also not in dispute.”
Actually a Canadian study showed that children raised by two lesbians were better adjusted than children raised by either male gay parents or straight parents.
So it is in dispute. But irrelevant. There’s plenty of non-optimal situations children are raised in.
And of course it’s an emotional topic for me. Relationships are by their very nature emotional topics. But my response was to the point raised by papa regarding the condition he’d want to put on gay adoption.
And obviously my comments about the sensitivity of the prostate were tongue-in-cheek. I don’t believe in mythological bogeymen, Jewish or otherwise.
Shem Bennett
19 Apr 12 at 11:41 am
Shem, where did I say sexual deviancy was exclusive to homosexuals? Where did I say anal sex in a heterosexual relationship was an ordered expression of sexuality? Where did I say all heterosexuals are ordered individuals? I didn’t. What I do say is that same-sex attracted people are engaging in a disordered sexual activity.
Inserting the penis into the orifice designed for the discharge of faeces is disordered.
However, what is the essential social purpose of inserting the penis into the orifice designed for the discharge of faeces that would require the social recognition of the act for the purpose of responsibilities to the community? Heterosexual activity is by design procreative, and there are responsibilities required both to the children produced and to society as a whole that must be upheld and protected. Anal sex is, well, nothing much. It has no inherent social responsibility attached to it. (Equally applied to clitoral stimulation). All same-sex attacted people do is, well, fornicate for no purpose other than to get their rocks off. Okay, who cares.
I understand how, after 50 odd years of progressive social policies screaming about woman’s right to sterile sex and the right to commit feticide that you may be under the impression that everyone agreed. You would be wrong though.
Male homosexuals are mysogynists of the worst kind. Keep the anus out of marriage. Hmmm, need a better catch-phrase, I’ll work on it. I might like this exercising my right to not be offended thingy.
Chrisse
19 Apr 12 at 11:42 am
The take home message is the fascinating insight into what prompts Shem to ‘always wonder’
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 11:44 am
Chrisse
A lot of us heterosexual people fornicate for no ohter purpose than to get our rocks off. Actually, I’d say most of us since few people are having babies every 9 months until the end of their fertile lives. And not all gays get their rocks off the back way, I understand.
I’m still trying to work out if you’re a piss take or a lunatic.
jtfsoon
19 Apr 12 at 11:46 am
No it actually isn’t.
And if it’s irrelvant and in dispute why did you suggest it was “pretty obvious”?
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 11:51 am
Chrisse appears to be doing the religious right version of the feminazis like Naomi Wolf.
jtfsoon
19 Apr 12 at 11:51 am
Do you have a link? It would be valuable to understand what “better adjusted” means.
Token
19 Apr 12 at 11:52 am
Shem I agree single parents should also provide an other gender role model if possible. But they aren’t a party to this negotiation so you can’t demand conditions for them.
papachango
19 Apr 12 at 11:53 am
Gay marriage is simply a wedge issue designed to split the social conservative wing of the right from the libertarian-ish wing.
Most of its supporters have little interest in the topic other than its ability to make Tony Abbott uncomfortable.
It is yet another “first-world problem” that doesn’t rank in the top 100 issues that need addressing in Australia.
My “meh” opinion on same-sex marriage (gay marriage is a misnomer – I assume hetero men could marry each other too) would likely be weakly supportive if its supporters were less objectionable and boorish.
Matt
19 Apr 12 at 11:56 am
A lot of us heterosexual people fornicate for no ohter purpose than to get our rocks off.
Yes, quite, but in order to do this without it leading to children involves the use of contraception or the like for most of us.
BTW, Chrisse makes excellent sense.
dover_beach
19 Apr 12 at 11:59 am
Really? Homosexuals are ‘misogynists of the worst kind’ because they sometimes have to resort to using different orifices to get off? She also seems to be overly obsessed with shit.
What is being reinterpreted is that marriage has evolved from procreation as its primary purpose to long term companionship. It’s got nothing to do with shit. I am fine with that.
jtfsoon
19 Apr 12 at 12:03 pm
Do people have the option of leaving their anus outside of the matrimonial bed, Chrisse? You’ll have to draw diagrams to explain.
steve from brisbane
19 Apr 12 at 12:05 pm
jfsoon, sexual activity has a bonding role, I don’t deny that. However, sexual activity just for bonding has no essential public purpose that requires the government involvement.
The whole basis of the same-sex proponents case relies on distancing the procreative function of heterosexual activity from sexual activity. The whole basis of the same-sex proponents case for “equality” is to stomp on and deny children their most basic right to know and be raised by their biological parents. Same-sex marriage demands an artificial concept of equality over the basic human rights of children.
I notice that no one has answered the most basic question I have asked: What is the essential public purpose of same-sex relationships? This is a secular question, little luvvies.
Chrisse
19 Apr 12 at 12:05 pm
See my post above – I’d support it on the proviso that they STFU for good, plus a few other conditions.
papachango
19 Apr 12 at 12:06 pm
The most predictable abuser of the facile speaketh
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 12:08 pm
Where are you people going to be constantly assaulted by angry homosexuals?
AJ
19 Apr 12 at 12:19 pm
Well, seeing this thread has already been one of the most anatomically explicit here for quite some time, I do tend to wonder whether any heterosexual male who has had anal sex with a woman has much grounds to be offended at the “unnaturalness” of a man doing the same thing with a male.
According to some Slate articles, heterosexual anal sex in the US has been increasingly popular with the young folk. Does this account partly for them being much more tolerant of the idea of male homosexual practices?
steve from brisbane
19 Apr 12 at 12:20 pm
This debate bout same-sex marriage may be a storm in a teacup – something that happened in 2012, but is irrelevant in future.
The chances of sexual orientation being genetic is quite high. Should molecular biologists discover a gene(s) that predisposes a child to homosexuality how many couples will demand to know the sexual orientation of their child – a considerable number demand to know the sex of their child, today.
How many heterosexual couples will choose to have a child they know has a predisposition to homosexuality?
ella
19 Apr 12 at 12:21 pm
No wonder you’re the butt of jokes around here, Steve.
Gab
19 Apr 12 at 12:22 pm
In Lygon St cafes while enjoying a meal?
Matt
19 Apr 12 at 12:23 pm
Seems a legitimate question to me, Gab.
Actually, the extracts I was noting yesterday in the open thread from 18th century English criminal treatment of homosexuals illustrate the heights of public passion and disgust that was expressed at sodomy, which (it would appear) was what homosexual men in Britain at the time were mainly interested in.
Social feelings about the nature of certain sex acts changes over time, and I am just asking why.
steve from brisbane
19 Apr 12 at 12:27 pm
Seriously, expressing an opinion on same-sex marriage other than wildly supportive gets you damned as “homphobic”. The same sex marriage campaigners have been ugly, nasty and offputting.
Even you have ripped a line from my non-committal statement on the subject to try and paint me as a homophobe. Classic example of the above.
Matt
19 Apr 12 at 12:31 pm
No it isn’t
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 12:33 pm
No.
The drowning of our culture with porn where the actors get paid at twice for anal sex over vaginal sex might have something to do with it.
The pitifully sad ‘jaded’ outlook of so many of our young is pretty well all thae result of leftism, the lowlife poisonous ideology of creeps like liar-stevefb™
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 12:40 pm
You reckon gay marriage is an issue? Small change. Tim Blair has news of an altogether more awful sort.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/putting_allah_into_afl
WB
19 Apr 12 at 12:42 pm
The drowning of our culture with porn where the actors get paid at twice for anal sex over vaginal sex might have something to do with it.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Come back, first thing I see and it pays off. James Kay, he’s comedy gold at the Cat.
The pitifully sad ‘jaded’ outlook of so many of our young is pretty well all thae result of leftism
That’s right O Lumanatus Maximus, ’twas the Commies what created porn. Jay-sus.
Adrien
19 Apr 12 at 12:53 pm
You and the leftism you represent doesn’t diminish and demean gender differences Adrien?
U clown
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 12:56 pm
So what part of ‘phobia’ no longer means ‘fear’?
More word redefinitions. It never ends, does it?
nilk
19 Apr 12 at 1:06 pm
I’m trying to remember the day when I made a conscious choice to be attracted to men rather than women.
Can I change my mind, James?
ella
19 Apr 12 at 1:12 pm
Point to where I said you could ella.
Do you reject the fact that many are bisexual and the realisation of homosexual leanings is in fact not infrequently by choice?
Or are you asserting that sexual orientation is black and white?
It’s not but even if it were why would you also assert that yes/no is genetically determine.
You assert crap with facility ella
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 1:21 pm
None of the gays or lesbians I know are so by “choice”.
.
19 Apr 12 at 1:24 pm
Really? Homosexuals are ‘misogynists of the worst kind’
Jason, I took that as nothing more than rhetorical exuberance; the substance of what Chrisse said remains excellent, however.
What is the essential public purpose of same-sex relationships?
Very good question. None at all. Again, this points to a fundamental difference between the marriage relationship and this other (committed same-sex) relationship.
dover_beach
19 Apr 12 at 1:24 pm
Really?
How do you ‘know’ that sexual orientation is binary?
And what has this do do with ssm?
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 1:27 pm
FTFY.
It’s also complete nonsense.
.
19 Apr 12 at 1:27 pm
What precisely is “also complete nonsense”, dot?
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 1:28 pm
I never said that. Whatever the nodality of orientation, for me the only option to preference has been blonde women or Asian women.
That said I don’t know anyone who is straight by choice either.
.
19 Apr 12 at 1:29 pm
The idea of seeing a women getting rogered up the arse will make people more tolerant of gays.
Complete. Bollocks.
.
19 Apr 12 at 1:30 pm
The heterormative, assimilationsist, capitalistic and corporatizing motives are behind all this gay lobby as well.
its that simple really!!
selena 1234
19 Apr 12 at 1:33 pm
Interesting.
What made you stupidly believe that was what I argued?
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 1:33 pm
The fact that I am literate, you dolt.
.
19 Apr 12 at 1:34 pm
That is asserting that sexual orientation is binary.
Are you stupid dot?
Binary answer please
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 1:35 pm
Actually pparently ur not dot.
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 1:36 pm
No it isn’t you illiterate c**t.
.
19 Apr 12 at 1:36 pm
So u were merely being ‘suggestive’ dot?
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 1:37 pm
No you stupid c**t, you inferred a choice is always binary.
An example of a binary choice is like how you have chosen to be dyslexic through indolence and sloth.
.
19 Apr 12 at 1:42 pm
No I didn’t.
Quite the contrary.
U really are an illierate c**t, dot.
JamesK
19 Apr 12 at 1:43 pm
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/opposition-leader-tony-abbott-heckled-at-lygon-street-dinner/story-fn7x8me2-1226331843740
Not nice…
selena 1234
19 Apr 12 at 1:46 pm
I like men, dot. You are looking good to me.
ella
19 Apr 12 at 1:49 pm
In a sense every wedding is a royal wedding with the bride and the groom as king and queen of creation, making a new life together so that life can flow through them into the future. – Bishop of London’s sermon at the wedding of Kate and William
In this secularist age many proponents of traditional marriage may find it hard to articulate their deep attachment to the institution and why they feel moved to defend it. A passing acquaintance with Jung and his insights into the significance of myth and archetype to the human psyche (expressed as ritual) could provide an answer. An archetype gives us access to a sense of the numinous or sublime. The outer ritual of a marriage between a man and woman is an archetype which evokes what Jung called the “inner marriage” of the opposites (Hierosgamos) within the psyche – masculine/feminine, conscious/unconscious, divine/human – which in turn gives birth to the Self, the archetype of wholeness.
Certain universal motifs mean that certain psychic structures are shared by all of us. The archetypal “sacred marriage”, for example, is the central symbol of diverse spiritual traditions. The union of god and goddess manifested in ancient Egypt as Osiris and Isis, in Hinduism as Shiva and Shakti, in Buddhism as Tara and Avalokitesvara. The sacred marriage symbolizes the “mystical union of opposites,” with the bride representing the “incarnate self” and the bridegroom representing the “disincarnate Self.” The goddess symbolizes the divine presence within the physical world while the god symbolizes the transcendent spirit; the sacred marriage is necessary to unite the physical and spiritual worlds in order to engender the fertility that brings forth life.
The numinous effect of archetypes invest them with a compelling power – but in this day and age people are so removed from the meaning of myth and ritual they don’t always understand why.
PS Gay men have their own Twin Soul/Twin Brother archetypes (Achilles/Patroclus, David/Jonathan) which informs their own tradition.
Viva
19 Apr 12 at 3:44 pm
Sinc
Are you guys on the gay lobby payroll??
why such interest AGAIN?
selen234
19 Apr 12 at 3:53 pm
Hahaha
The gay lobby?
The Mardi Gras went bust once, personally I think finance, mining etc are better benefactors for young whippernsappers such as myself rather than the pink mac daddies!
.
19 Apr 12 at 4:00 pm
Doug Allen in his writings on the economics of marriage and divorce challenges you to describe marriage to a 19 year old male:
• Marriage is all about responsibility, monogamy and a painful exit if things go awry.
• Yes, there is the prospect of children, and mutual support, but only if you sign up to child support obligations, community property rules and many other constraints that are enforceab
You might wish to look at Doug Allen’s http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/samesex.pdf
Allen says that marriage is an economically efficient institution, designed and evolved to regulate incentive problems that arise between a man and a woman over the life cycle of procreation.
The real problem with same-sex marriage is same-sex divorce.
Marriage includes exit provisions: possible grounds for divorce, rules for splitting property, alimony and child support rules, and custody rules.
1. Many institutional rules within marriage are designed to restrict males from exploiting the specific investments women must make upfront in child bearing.
2. Since same-sex marriages are not based as often on procreation, these restrictions are likely to be objected to and challenged in courts and legislatures. To the extent divorce laws are changed, they may hurt heterosexual marriages, and women in particular.
3. Given that same-sex relationships are often made up of two financially independent individuals, there will be litigation and political pressures for even easier divorce laws since the problem of financial dependency will be reduced.
Alterations in divorce laws to deal with issues of same-sex divorce necessarily apply to heterosexuals, and these new laws may not be optimal for heterosexuals, making marriage a more fragile institution for them.
The social and legal characteristics of marriage may be a poor match for the incentive problems that arise in gay and lesbian couples. Forcing all three relationships under the same law could lead to a sub-optimal law for all three types of marriage
Jim Rose
19 Apr 12 at 6:46 pm
thanks sinc!!!
only as old as you feel
selen234
19 Apr 12 at 6:52 pm
Women are excluded from joining a men’s a-grade football team.
Boys are excluded from attending all-girl’s schools.
We have separate toilets for men and women.
Excluding same sex couples from marriage as it is understood in broader society is not discrimination.
You have used the term homophobia stupidly, or perhaps artfully – which links back to the observations in Samuel’s original post. You perhaps use it as a tool to stifle debate.
Getting back to the actual correct definition of homophobia, any reasonable human would accept that if gays have all the rights and protections and (in my case, respect as human beings) then there is no way that my saying I object to them making a farce of a cultural institution that my family has revered for generations could be twisted as being ‘homophobic’.
There are more important issues for adults to be energized about than winning a victory that most gays and lesbians won’t even take advantage of, at the expense of a harmless but cherished tradition. Grow up, Australia.
Abu Chowdah
19 Apr 12 at 7:21 pm
Come the election, or even before then, the Libs need to put together a clip of Rudd and Gillard stating their opinion on marriage (i.e. that it is between a man and a woman). Over and over again. Intersperse it with clips of Penny Wong and Bob Brown with their partners.
Finish with “So why are you picking on Tony Abbott?”
perturbed
19 Apr 12 at 9:51 pm
Its infuriating what facile arguments are being deployed over gay marriage.
The whiny claim that ‘homophobia’ is behind any opposition is pathetic and wrong.
The claim of some ‘right’ to marry the person you love is old-fashioned heterosexist romantic tosh, even for opposite-sex marriages; the ‘right’ we have is that we are all free to marry opposite sex partners for any or all reasons of our own (including to cover up teh ghey).
For gay people to base their claim in this shallow heterosexist romance is pathetic.
The claim of a right to ‘equality’ is specious. Gay people have always participated with equal rights in opposite-sex marriage, and still do.
Its tosh also that gay couples might form some special threat in raising children. Gay people have always married and always had children – in straight relationships. They have children now, and there is no reason to deny their households the respect due anyone raising their kids the best they can.
Society as a whole has a strong investment in the family. There is good reason to be suspicious and cautious of attempts to fundamentally innovate with the basic unit of our society.
I remember several such innovations, also sold on emotive claims for justice and equality, and they have fundamentally altered our society in some very negative ways. No-fault divorce; presumptive equality of de facto marriages; and welfare sponsorship of single parenthood all have had far-reaching consequences that were denied as stupid conservative slippery-slope scaremongering. The removal of criminal sanction from homosexual acts is another. Why, the good and the just even derided the claim that these innovations would lead to accepting gay marriage!
Despite being a Christian, I come down in support of it and for one reason only. They have not made a coherent case for it; their opponents have made a case either. The social costs are likely to be easily bearable. My only reason is that I want to be accepting of my acquaintances who happen to be gay.
ChrisPer
19 Apr 12 at 10:12 pm
Not this old chestnut again.
Homosexuals – no-one cares. You are already free to marry anyone you want. Just has to be someone of the opposite sex. Don’t like it? Welcome to the real world where unicorns do not gambol in the fairy-floss fields.
Marriage is an institution to bind a male and a female into the responsibility and hard work they have when they produce kids. To do that it gives a societal approval and it also conserves their capital and accords them a status necessary for the work and responsibility children bring. ‘Love’ gets you into marriage. Love for the children and mutual respect and regard get you through the lifetime of hard work the children bring you.
If a married couple cannot have children, it’s normally viewed as a personal tragedy for them. Using that as an excuse or accusation is callous and heterophobic on homosexual activist’s behalf.
Homosexual ‘marriage’ would be a demeaning travesty, a caricature, for homosexuals according to the ones I know anyway.
What they’d like is a secular recognition of relationship in the form of a declared union or recognition in the form of something like a contract. I’d support that, especially for the long-term partnerships of people like my friends. Why not? No civilised person disagrees with that and divorce lawyers are just as happy with it too.
As I said welcome to the real world.
Homosexuals want to get married? You already can. You just want something ‘special’ because you think you are ‘special’. You are not. You just don’t like members of the opposite sex. What’s special about that?
I don’t like left-wing idiots. Does that make me ‘special’, and able to demand special legal status? Of course not.
Mk50 of Brisbane
19 Apr 12 at 10:19 pm
Hahahaha. Of course. Y’all – usual suspects = have already got a thread going
Maybe that’s why y’all have missed the red-stilleto and dress wearer, Vatican-based Pagan pontifex maximus, tells American kinky and lezzie nuns how to be women! Lezzie and kinky nuns tell poxy Pope to pop off!
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june12/vatican_04-19.html
Peter Patton
20 Apr 12 at 9:11 pm
Oh, James K, fancy finding you in all your papist-denying splendour. Quelle surprise.
Peter Patton
20 Apr 12 at 9:12 pm
Aren’t you worried about being judged by the company you keep?
Peter Patton
20 Apr 12 at 9:13 pm
to recap Doug Allen – describe marriage to a 19 year old male:
• Marriage is about responsibility, monogamy and a painful exit if things go awry.
• there is the prospect of children, and mutual support, but only if you sign up to child support, community property rules and many other legal constraints.
what is the upside of all this?
Jim Rose
20 Apr 12 at 9:16 pm
“Y’all”?
Abu Chowdah
20 Apr 12 at 9:18 pm
OK, Abu, for you only; “youse”.
Peter Patton
20 Apr 12 at 9:25 pm
Disturbing (but unsurprising) story from Breitbart.com:
Left-Wing Nuns Signed, Circulated Petitions for Walker Recall.
Apart from endorsing communist lunatic Obama, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious has also offically endorsed the Occupy movement, citing the evil of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
It of course surprises no-one that they also support gay ‘marriage.’
They are not “nuns,” by the way.
No surprise either that embittered sodomy advocate Peter is hooking up with an extremist group of geriatric luvvies. He is one, more or less.
The Vatican is about to demolish these old socialist cranks – a thing of belated beauty. As traditionalist Catholic gay icon, Oscar Wilde, once said: “Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.”
LOL.
C.L.
20 Apr 12 at 9:43 pm
Hehe. Gotcha. Told y’all it wouldn’t take long. Though perhaps it’s a bit unfair to paint you all with the Captain Catholic.
CC to Nuns: Y’all are doing wrong!
Peter Patton
20 Apr 12 at 9:45 pm
Now, this is REAL Choppers rockin’ out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79fzeNUqQbQ
Peter Patton
20 Apr 12 at 9:50 pm
Auto de fei.
.
21 Apr 12 at 9:11 am
http://m.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/jock-shock-as-mitchell-joins-gay-fm-20120421-1xdwp.html
Bolt should bring his sister
selen234
22 Apr 12 at 5:01 am
Is Bolt’s sister not an autonomous fully-franchised adult human being in her own right? Can she not decide her own career path and make her own choices? So why must a male sibling be assigned to “bring her” here and “bring her” there?
Wake up, dear. It’s the 21st century already.
sdog
22 Apr 12 at 6:19 am
lol!!
faecitious comment on my behalf!!
selen234
22 Apr 12 at 7:58 am
http://m.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/nov/10/history.society?cat=books&type=article
The Guardian article here is an excellent analysis of Ancient Greek homosexuality
Glad that the 3aw team have started the conversation
Suicide in Australia is a hidden problem that needs to be addressed
selen234
23 Apr 12 at 3:01 pm
[...] If it is unfair to homosexuals not to be allowed to marry, it is also unfair for trios etc. But I’m against gay marriage for other reasons. Share [...]
Senator Louise Pratt – is she confused? at Catallaxy Files
23 Sep 12 at 5:17 pm
They’re about 3% of the population.Why do we take any notice of them or take their demands so seriously?
Mr B
24 Sep 12 at 3:09 am
Boring.
Sir Liberal GCMG AK
26 Sep 12 at 1:13 pm