Must read weekend reading at Catallaxy Files

Must read weekend reading

Our good friend Skepticlawyer has written a very thoughtful and important essay on tolerance, gay rights, and Chick-fil-A. Even if you disagree well worth the read.

If commenting remember that Skepticlawyer and her friends don’t have the same tolerant standards to abuse as we do here.

Written by Sinclair Davidson

August 3rd, 2012 at 9:44 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

465 Responses to 'Must read weekend reading'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Must read weekend reading'.

Remove the anti-discrimination laws and let communities sort it out or themselves.

Any changes to societal standards must be forced to run the gauntlet of disapproval. This social experiment of short circuiting the process by legislating the result always ends in abiding social tension.

Driftforge

3 Aug 12 at 10:17 pm
I think part of the difference is that homosexuality is not of kind with the other ‘discriminations’ noted, so comparisons don’t really hold.

Driftforge

3 Aug 12 at 10:32 pm
What, that was a waste of ten minutes.

So much ignorance of anything outside law on display. What goes on in law school, they get holes drilled in their heads or something?

Chris M

3 Aug 12 at 10:39 pm
Well that was a total waste of time. Rambling and emotional article and what was the point? We should be more tolerant of gays trashing people becuase they don’t agree with them in their fight for “marriage” equality?

Gab

3 Aug 12 at 10:43 pm
But hating on the queers? That only exists because one particular religious tradition has become globally dominant, especially in Western countries. When we ask LGBT people to be tolerant, we need to remember just how much we’re asking of them.

What is this garbage about “hating the queers”? Saying ‘no, I disagree” or “no, my religion forbids gays getting married” is now “hate”? How jejune.

One particular religion? Does she mean Islam?

LGBT tolerant? Of course. No one could ever accuse the gay “marriage” activists of being Christophobes.

Gab

3 Aug 12 at 10:55 pm
It’s just fucking Chicken Burgers…FFS!

.

3 Aug 12 at 10:57 pm
The action against Chik-Fil-A was a sort of civil-rights era style protest; unfortunately it was triggered not by bigoted actions or discovery of oppression or discrimination, but merely the expressed views of the corporate head, Dan Cathy. They knew the organisation was anti-gay, but the pretext they took for action wasn’t strong enough and pited them against the First Amendment. Therefore the activists over-reached, and handed the conservatives a rolled-gold opportunity to push back. The right’s position was, ‘It’s not about whether he was right or wrong but his right to say it’, sort of thing.

After all the sit ins and protests have finished (as they will) and the issue fades from the headlines, Chik-Fil-A will still be operating with most of its stores intact. There will be no apology or retraction.

End result: Chik-Fil-A has built a strong niche market of devoted customers overnight.

“An unprecedented day of record sales. One restaurant even ran out of food.”

dd

3 Aug 12 at 10:59 pm
They ~~knew~~ imagined the organisation was anti-gay. TFIFY

JamesK

3 Aug 12 at 11:05 pm
I read somewhere today Burger King CEO is thinking about announcing they’re pro-life, after seeing the record sales at Chick-fil-A. /joke

Gab

3 Aug 12 at 11:07 pm
DD

Sl raises a decent point indirectly. How can you really have a civil rights act of the 60′s that only applies in supporting blacks but somehow other minorities aren’t afforded the same protections.

There are all sorts of laws in the US originating from the Civil Rights period that protect blacks and their rights.

Gays do have a point here or if they aren’t seen to then the Civil Right’s act ought to be voided.

JC

3 Aug 12 at 11:12 pm
End result: Chik-Fil-A has built a strong niche market of devoted customers overnight.

I love the right over there. They are so energetic.

JC

3 Aug 12 at 11:14 pm
The article was long and windy. The only thing to consider here is this: it doesn’t matter what you think about gay marriage, Rahm Emmanuel wanted to use zoning laws against a private business (and to threaten jobs as well) because he doesn’t like the views of an executive. That’s all there is to it.

But if you you are happy with the government effectively shutting down people who have broken no law, then the Democrats are for you. I would add that this could just as easily apply in reverse. In fact, an integral part of the Fisk Doctrine is that any business with Leftists on the board would be nationalized immediately. All business owners should be subject to an ideological test, and if they fail, they lose everything.

Again, this is basically the position of Rahm Emmanuel, so I don’t anticipate any Leftists disagreeing with me on principle.

Fisky

3 Aug 12 at 11:22 pm
They ~~knew~~ imagined the organisation was anti-gay. TFIFY

It is. That’s not a judgement, it’s simply a fact.

How can you really have a civil rights act of the 60′s that only applies in supporting blacks but somehow other minorities aren’t afforded the same protections.

Good question. But then the question becomes, what is a protectable minority? The disabled aren’t covered by the civil rights act, either.

dd

3 Aug 12 at 11:24 pm
The President of Chick-Fil-A was only expressing the same opinions and personal beliefs about traditional marriage that Obama did until a few weeks ago.

Where were all these feral bullies during Obama’s inauguration in January 2009?

sdog

3 Aug 12 at 11:27 pm
But then the question becomes, what is a protectable minority? The disabled aren’t covered by the civil rights act, either

Yes but the disabled wouldn’t likely be refused service like a gay couple were that someone linked to the other day. They aren’t told to go to the back of the bus, however they do share some similar prejudices that blacks experienced.

I’m really only raising this as a point as I believe people should have a right to serve who the like.

JC

3 Aug 12 at 11:29 pm
They knew the organisation was anti-gay,

How so? Do they not serve homosexuals in their restaurants?

Gab

3 Aug 12 at 11:30 pm
How so? Do they not serve homosexuals in their restaurants?

I think reading SL’s piece they check carefully who they sell their franchises to and donations the firm or the owner has made suggests an anti-gay theme to the gay taliban.

It could be that he’s reacting to the hard sell and the rough house tactics from some, though not all of the gay community.

But as SL suggested, if you don’t like people then you shouldn’t be forced to accept their ways or co-mingle as that has worse consequences.

JC

3 Aug 12 at 11:35 pm
How so? Do they not serve homosexuals in their restaurants?

Nothing like that. They have donated money to anti-gay causes. Again, this isn’t discriminatory behavior by the company but the free exercise of personal choice. As I said, this is a case of activist over-reach, and a tactical error. Many people who are normally sympathetic to the GLBT cause are on the fence on this because there’s the whole issue of personal choice, religious freedom, and freedom of speech.

dd

3 Aug 12 at 11:35 pm
Why is it impossible to separate monotheism from homophobia? For the simple reason that every monotheistic tradition hates on the queers, while very few polytheistic traditions do

I’m going to give it a patient read tomorrow but if the above is anything to go by it doesn’t look good. The Greeks and the Romans took a very dim view of men that played the feminine role in what we would call homosexual encounters, so much so, that they were essentially the province of male prostitutes and slaves, as well as boys and very young men, in the latter.

dover_beach

3 Aug 12 at 11:35 pm
Sorry, the former.

dover_beach

3 Aug 12 at 11:36 pm
But as SL suggested, if you don’t like people

How is disagreeing with people now equated to not liking people?

Gab

3 Aug 12 at 11:37 pm
It is. That’s not a judgement, it’s simply a fact.

That’s a very serious allegation and is not fact.

Show us the evidence to support your wild allegation.

JamesK

3 Aug 12 at 11:37 pm
Dog:

The President of Chick-Fil-A was only expressing the same opinions and personal beliefs about traditional marriage that Obama did until a few weeks ago.

Not quite I would imagine. That Ugandan group from what I read some time ago is pretty horrendous.

For SL

The company is wholly in private hands, and not listed on the stock exchange. Its CEO (Dan Cathy) also has a long history of donating to various religious organisations, particularly those opposed to gay rights. These groups range from the benign to the appalling: the latter include bodies involved in promoting Uganda’s ‘kill the gays’ bill:

JC

3 Aug 12 at 11:40 pm
They have donated money to anti-gay causes.

Such as?

dover_beach

3 Aug 12 at 11:40 pm
That’s a very serious allegation and is not fact.

oh dear. Sounds like I’m in trouble. try googling “chick fil a donations to anti-gay organizations”. Hey, you could be right… maybe it’s all just slander and distortion; I don’t know. I’m just repeating what I read about it.

dd

3 Aug 12 at 11:42 pm
I’m not going to search for evidence to support your slanderous allegation dd.

That’s your role.

JamesK

3 Aug 12 at 11:45 pm
remember that septiclawyer and her fake friends don’t have the same tolerant standards to abuse as we do here.

Those pompous, utterly discredited, amoral parasites?

Who gives a rodent’s backsayeedah what they think about anything, FFS?

I banned all personal interactions with ‘lawyers‘ (i.e. legal parasites) decades ago and have never regretted it.

I’d no sooner link to that cesspit of site than I’d willingly infect myself with syphilis.

FFS, Snic.

Rabz

3 Aug 12 at 11:47 pm
List of the “anti-gay” charities and such.

Gab

3 Aug 12 at 11:47 pm
List of the “anti-gay” charities and such.

Gab

3 Aug 12 at 11:49 pm
So any organisation that believes in traditional marriage is anti-gay, dd?

dover_beach

3 Aug 12 at 11:50 pm
Here James. SL’s piece leads to this link.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-mea-culpa-i-have-changed-my-mind/

To be honest, I read it just now and I don’t quite see the smoking gun here. There is a US group which invited the Ugandan reps which the US group says it was a mistake to have invited them. Perhaps so.

To be honest I don’t quite see how that group which says it helps with a gay cure would invite a group that wants to kill the people it wants to cure. In other words it sounds plausible that it may have been a mistake.

JC

3 Aug 12 at 11:51 pm
Due to a lack of reading comprehension and desire to deal in truth, progressive websites have for days peddled the lie that Chick-Fil-A supported the Family Research Council’s support of legislation which OK’d gay-killing in Uganda. A lie that took all of two seconds to debunk:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/02/No-Chickfila-Did-Not-Support-Legislation-To-Kill-The-Gays

Gab

3 Aug 12 at 11:53 pm
I’m not going to search for evidence to support your slanderous allegation dd.

That’s your role

FFS, it’s information that’s mentioned in some form or another in almost every single news article on this topic. But here you go. It’s being widely circulated as a fact.

dd

3 Aug 12 at 11:54 pm
I’m sorry, but the Angry Gay Left just really, really blew it on this one.

Support for gay rights had been quietly but steadily rising among ordinary Americans (except among blacks), but no one likes such overt, foul bullying… there was bound to be push-back.

There was so much wrong with SL’s post that I’m not even going to get started, lest I be up all night.

I’ll leave y’all with some other reading:

“Moral of the story: Don’t try to bully us and you won’t get pwned by a chicken sandwich.”

And “hating on the queers?” Really? Show me where…
“At the Hollywood Chick-fil-A with a gay and a lesbian reader”

Two gay acquaintances of mine visited Chick-Fil-A’s on Wednesday, one on the more-liberal West Coast and one in the more-conservative South. Neither was turned away, and in fact the only abuse the one in the South copped when he made it apparent he and his partner were gay and yet were going to eat there anyway in support of the first amendment, was from the feral “gay rights” protestors.

This moron encapsulates everything about why this latest campaign by the Angry Left was bound to be a big #fail:
http://twitchy.com/2012/08/02/douche-of-the-day-tolerance-bully-proudly-harasses-young-woman-at-chick-fil-a-window/

sdog

3 Aug 12 at 11:55 pm
So any organisation that believes in traditional marriage is anti-gay, dd?

*ahem* as I said: this issue of donations is being widely circulated in the media, as fact. I didn’t invent it.

dd

3 Aug 12 at 11:56 pm
Mo’Hammered’ens?

Anyone bothered to consult those learned ~~friends~~ enemies?

You pompous pillocks.

Rabz

3 Aug 12 at 11:57 pm
*ahem* as I said: this issue of donations is being widely circulated in the media, as fact. I didn’t invent it.

No, but you’re repeating it. Do you believe that those who support traditional marriage are anti-gay?

dover_beach

3 Aug 12 at 11:59 pm
Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. SL’s link focuses on the US group inviting the Ugandan reps is called Exodus to make the case that donations also includes a hate group.

From Gabs link the donations made were as follows:

Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $240,000
Focus On The Family: $12,500
Eagle Forum: $5,000
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000

It doesn’t appear that Exodus got a great deal of the money and seems almost as an afterthought.

So a relatively small contribution to a group that says made a mistake inviting the Ugandans seems to have been blown out of proportion.

JC

4 Aug 12 at 12:01 am
“FFS” indeed dd.

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 12:02 am
James, I was wrong, but was merely repeating what’s in every news story on the topic. You knew that, and you knew the official story was dodgy, but instead of showing your cards you played dumb so you could have a ‘gotcha’ moment. Which was just being a dick.

dd

4 Aug 12 at 12:07 am
James

DD is a good guy and always has been. Giving him a hard time makes a baby cry.

I thought like he did and then when I delved into it more I realized it appeared to be suspect.

You can even see my trail through the thread as new information came up.

JC

4 Aug 12 at 12:11 am
I should have said much farther back but got diverted that I think Gab was right about the Skepticlawyer supposedly “very thoughtful and important essay”.

It’s actually all over the place, ill-informed and incoherent imho.

My reading was that the controversy wasn’t all evangelical Christians enraged by a long shot but conservatives and libertarians and also including some disillusioned Dems who are concerned with the undermining of First Amendment rights by government and the Dem over-reach in general.

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 12:13 am
It’s actually all over the place, ill-informed and incoherent imho

Yeah, that’s exactly what I wanted to say but took a diplomatic approach instead.

Gab

4 Aug 12 at 12:16 am
My reading was that the controversy wasn’t all evangelical Christians enraged by a long shot but conservatives and libertarians and also including some disillusioned Dems who are concerned with the undermining of First Amendment rights by government and the Dem over-reach in general.

You know what, I would go and buy stuff there even if I though it out after just because.

A group of us went to that Jewish coffee shop to support them after that blast from the anti-Semites. I’m not exactly religious, nor to I have any ill feeling towards gays in general. But I do hate a mugging.

JC

4 Aug 12 at 12:17 am
oops.. threw it out…

JC

4 Aug 12 at 12:17 am
JC, James and I just have trouble getting along. However he hit the nail on the head just now:

My reading was that the controversy wasn’t all evangelical Christians enraged by a long shot but conservatives and libertarians and also including some disillusioned Dems who are concerned with the undermining of First Amendment rights by government and the Dem over-reach in general.

dd

4 Aug 12 at 12:19 am
Which was just being a dick.

I’ve read my comments again.

I was polite with a supportive type TFIFY correction.

You doubled down. Quite aggressively.

I then pointed out that it was actually quite a serious thing to allege.

dd took no responsibility and suggested I could search for his sources.

I don’t think I was aggressive at all JC/dd.

Perhaps dd should re-read his?

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 12:20 am
Gab

SL makes makes a really good point. Religious groups to partake at the government trough through the tax free status. Perhaps that ought to be done away. In fact I can’t imagine a huge impact on the big churches that essentially give most of their money away.

JC

4 Aug 12 at 12:21 am
I don’t think I was aggressive at all JC/dd.

Perhaps dd should re-read his?

I retract the ‘dick’ insult; actually I regretted it after I submitted it. Let’s just move on and try to get along on whatever thread comes next.

dd

4 Aug 12 at 12:22 am
No, but you’re repeating it. Do you believe that those who support traditional marriage are anti-gay?

Let me be the first to say: Yes, I think they are.

There’s nothing “traditional” about hetero marriage in 2012. Traditionlly, marriages were arranged by your parents and took place as soon as the female started menstruating. Marriages were traditionally more about property or power than love.

Nowadays when people say “traditional marriage” they explicitly mean “No Pooftas”.

You only have to look at how every thread about this on Catallaxy turns into poofter bashing day for your proof.

Yobbo

4 Aug 12 at 12:23 am
Fair enough.

I’m glad you don’t see it as mad Evangelicals getting enraged.

It’s amazing what unites Americans as much as what divides them.

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 12:25 am
Religious groups to partake at the government trough through the tax free status. Perhaps that ought to be done away. In fact I can’t imagine a huge impact on the big churches that essentially give most of their money away.

Include unions, all charities, and all “green” groups too.

Gab

4 Aug 12 at 12:26 am
Nowadays when people say “traditional marriage” they explicitly mean “No Pooftas”.

Presumably even pooftas against SSM , Yobbo?

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 12:26 am
The other reason it’s obvious that people who care about “traditional marriage” really just hate gays is a logical one.

If all you really care about is “traditional marriage”, then allowing gays to marry will not affect that at all. Gay marriage, by its very nature, is untraditional. So you can keep calling hetero marriages “traditional marriages” and call gay marriages something else.

But it’s obvious that isn’t what this is about. Christians hate gay marriage because they hate gays, end of story.

Yobbo

4 Aug 12 at 12:27 am
I really don’t care much about the marriage issue because i see marriage in the current state as having been turned into an abattoir for males through the concerted intervention of feminazis and their leftist allies. Modern marriage is rooted and young men should run a mile from it.

Having said that it’s really fucking offensive to hear people that are against gay marriage being homophobic and other assorted stuff.

JC

4 Aug 12 at 12:28 am
BTW, it’s been less than a month since the last time I had to post this.

Yobbo

4 Aug 12 at 12:28 am
Christians hate gay marriage because they hate gays, end of story.

That holds true for Muslim, atheists, agnostics and Pastafarians.

Gab

4 Aug 12 at 12:30 am
BTW, it’s been less than a month since the last time I had to post this.

Offensive the first time too.

I bet that makes Yobbo happy.

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 12:31 am
Christians hate gay marriage because they hate gays, end of story.

Because someone says I disagree, they must hate you.
It’s a childlike simplicity you have there.

Gab

4 Aug 12 at 12:32 am
The other reason it’s obvious that people who care about “traditional marriage” really just hate gays is a logical one.

Er .. actually no.

It’s perverse and the antithesis of reason

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 12:32 am
But it’s obvious that isn’t what this is about. Christians hate gay marriage because they hate gays, end of story.

Yobbo,

And to take a really libertarian position, what if they do hate gays. If they don’t mistreat people and leave them alone by not having or wanting any association with them, what’s really wrong with that? I frankly don’t see the calamity here.
There doesn’t appear to be may movement to make it illegal nor is there any attempt to offend gays in any organized way.

JC

4 Aug 12 at 12:32 am
Having said that it’s really fucking offensive to hear people that are against gay marriage being homophobic and other assorted stuff

I’m sure it would be.

Do you have any examples?

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 12:33 am
People are free to hate gays all they want JC. They aren’t free to pass discriminatory laws against them though, or keep existing discriminatory laws on the books.

Currently gay couples in most of the world are at a significant disadvantage to hetero couples in terms of their standing before the law in terms of wills+estates, medical treatment, medical insurance, visas and passports and many other things.

Like James says there are gay people “opposed” to gay marriage. But he misunderstands the reasons behind that opposition. It’s because they really have no interested in getting “married”. They only want the same rights as married couples.

Yobbo

4 Aug 12 at 12:38 am
JC – Be sensible.

Its’s got nothing to do with people who have a principled opposition to SSM being homophobic.

It has everything to do with Yobbo’s bigotry:

anti-Catholic / anti-religious / anti-theism / anti-opposition to anarchic views

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 12:39 am
It’s because they really have no interested in getting “married”

That’s unintelligent as well as condescendingly bigoted Yobbo.

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 12:41 am
You only have to look at how every thread about this on Catallaxy turns into poofter bashing day for your proof.

Err, no they don’t but do keep hysterically making things up.

And you using the terms “poofter” and “faggot” as you “shockingly” do, every single time this issue is raised, when nobody here uses those terms, ever, is pretty out there.

twostix

4 Aug 12 at 12:41 am
Well in reality there are offensive people out there. So if the leaders do not want to be associated they have the free will to say so. An answer should be given about support for some kill gays charity should that be true. Personally I would boycott them if I believed they support such attitudes. Some here seem to be against free will to boycott because it might go against crony capitalism.

kelly liddle

4 Aug 12 at 12:41 am
Nobody uses them in print, twostix.

Yobbo

4 Aug 12 at 12:44 am
Kelly

Your babbling is really annoying. Give it up for the night and start afresh tomorrow…. well into the afternoon.

JC

4 Aug 12 at 12:47 am
And TBH twostix, I’m no angel. I sometimes call homosexuals words like “poofters” and “faggots” in casual conversation. I sometimes call Italians “wogs” and I sometimes call Collingwood supporters “mongoloids”.

But unlike the prim and polite Catallaxian god-botherers, I don’t want to deny any of those minority groups equal treatment under the law.

Yobbo

4 Aug 12 at 12:47 am
JC
I am not babbling. Maybe I am interupting because I didn’t read the comments but my comment is fair based on my skimming of the article.

kelly liddle

4 Aug 12 at 12:50 am
Presumably God-botherers don’t ever succeed in bothering the non-existent God.

Or even the existent one

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 12:50 am
How’s the taxi going Kelly?

Are you making some money on top of the repayments?

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 12:51 am
James
Thanks for asking. If you mean wages not really but am doing ok and it is a long term thing. But making money.

kelly liddle

4 Aug 12 at 12:58 am
Currently gay couples in most of the world are at a significant disadvantage to hetero couples in terms of their standing before the law in terms of wills+estates, medical treatment, medical insurance, visas and passports and many other things.

It’s odd that some libertarians answer to that is to simply hop onto the leftist state expansion freight train. Look at the arguments in the linked post. They’re trying to hook gays into the Civil Rights juggernaut.

The only libertarian position is to demand the state get out of marriage. Why anybody who claims to be for less state involvement in marriage would support an expansion of it is beyond me.

twostix

4 Aug 12 at 12:59 am
Good stuff!

Do you have drivers for night shifts?

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 12:59 am
Good blog post by Francis Cardinal George, OMI
Archbishop of Chicago:

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city? Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it? I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

The value in question is espousal of “gender-free marriage.” Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus. Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define “marriage” (or other institutions we did not invent) at will? What are we re-defining?

It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage. Marriage existed before Christ called together his first disciples two thousand years ago and well before the United States of America was formed two hundred and thirty six years ago. Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.

Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female. The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women. Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital. Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

RTWT

Quite unnecessary to be a theist of any sort to appreciate clear thinking and rational argument.

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 1:03 am
The only libertarian position is to demand the state get out of marriage.

So in other words gays just have to continue to suck it up unless the state agrees to completely deregulate marriage?

I like this argument, it combines the well-known “you aren’t libertarian enough” argument with the “I’m not bigoted, I just happen to agree with bigoted laws” sleight of hand.

Why anybody who claims to be for less state involvement in marriage would support an expansion of it is beyond me.

Would you say that libertarians should have fought against interracial marriage for the same reasons?

Yobbo

4 Aug 12 at 1:06 am
Yobbo

A gay relationship isn’t recognized under law as you know. However gay relationships have existed a long time and these days they are pretty open.

A marriage contract changes that relationship and even if they don’t marry that relationship will be guided under family law.

One partner owns the property and brought say most if not all of the property into the relationship. In a bust up that dude is fucked.

How exactly are you conferring rights to that person. what you’re really doing is changing the law and creating obligations for him he never had. You’re not in fact granting every gay person a right to marry, you’re actually granting those that do want a right, but you’re forcing obligations on those that don’t or those whose property will be divided up by a family court. How is that a good thing for such an individual who doesn’t want the law to force those obligations.

I’ve said for a long time now that if gays really thought about this most of them would run a fucking mile.

This piece has some sensible things to say..Instead of gays battling the state, they are now trying to use the state against their perceived enemies and lets face facts the issue of gay marriage is more in line with a grievance issue.

And there’s more money involved too.

But the civil rights paradigm never really fit: unlike most African-Americans, lesbians and gay men can render their minority status invisible. Furthermore, their economic status is not analogous—indeed, there are studies that show gay men, at least, are economically better off on average than heterosexuals. They tend to be better educated, have better jobs, and these days are not at all what one could call an oppressed minority. According to GayAgenda.com, “studies show that [gay] Americans are twice as likely to have graduated from college, twice as likely to have an individual income over $60,000 and twice as likely to have a household income of $250,000 or more.”

JC

4 Aug 12 at 1:10 am
People are free to hate gays all they want JC. They aren’t free to pass discriminatory laws against them though, or keep existing discriminatory laws on the books.

Chick-Fil-A does not discriminate against gay people. Full stop, period. Y’all need to be lobbying governments, not harassing minimum wage drive-thru-window girls and staging gross heavily-sexualised designed-to-disgust “kiss-ins” in family restaurants. Seriously – are these people trying to get everyone else off-side?

Currently gay couples in most of the world are at a significant disadvantage to hetero couples in terms of their standing before the law in terms of wills+estates, medical treatment, medical insurance, visas and passports and many other things.

Absolutely true. And a lot of people – including many Christians – want to see those inequalities done away with. We have been slowly but surely heading in the right direction, but the extreme in-your-face tactics of many gay “activists” are alienating more people than they’re getting on-side.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 1:11 am
Now this is a fucking real live libertarian movement.

The gay-liberation movement started as a protest against state oppression. The earliest gay-rights organizations, such as the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis, sought to legalize homosexual activity, then illegal per se. The movement was radicalized in the 1960s over police harassment. A gay bar on New York City’s Christopher Street, known as the Stonewall, was the scene of a three-day riot provoked by a police raid. Tired of being subjected to continual assault by the boys in blue, gay people fought back—and won. At the time, gay bars were under general attack from the New York State Liquor Authority, which pulled licenses as soon as a bar’s reputation as a gay gathering place became apparent. Activists of that era concentrated their fire on the issues that really mattered to the gay person in the street: the legalization of homosexual conduct and the protection of gay institutions.

This isn’t.

As gay activists grew older, however, and began to channel their political energy into the Democratic Party, they entered a new and more “moderate” phase. Instead of celebrating their unique identity and history, they undertook the arid quest for equality—which meant, in practice, battling “discrimination” in employment and housing, a marginal issue for most gay people—and finally taking up the crusade for gay marriage.

Instead of battling the state, they began to use the state against their perceived enemies. As it became fashionable and politically correct to be “pro-gay,” a propaganda campaign was undertaken in the public schools, epitomized by the infamous “Rainbow Curriculum” and the equally notorious tome for totsHeather Has Two Mommies. For liberals, who see the state not as Nietzsche’s “cold monster” but as a warm and caring therapist who is there to help, this was only natural. The Therapeutic State, after all, is meant to transform society into a liberal utopia where no one judges anyone and everyone listens to NPR.

JC

4 Aug 12 at 1:13 am
Also, in re the Constitutional issues:

Walmart is a very gay-friendly corporation.

If several large cities in the Bible Belt decided to ban them solely because of their management’s support for gay rights, that would be just as wrong as what Chicago and Boston are trying to do to Chick-Fil-A.

You shouldn’t be surprised when Americans get stroppy about activists of any stripe using the might of the State to punish anyone who has the “wrong” beliefs.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 1:15 am
You know who wrote this fine piece I’m quoting from, Justin Raimondo, a gay American libertarian type.

But the legislative agenda of the modern gay-rights movement is not meant to be useful to the gay person in the street: it is meant to garner support from heterosexual liberals and others with access to power. It is meant to assure the careers of aspiring gay politicos and boost the fortunes of the left wing of the Democratic Party. The gay-marriage campaign is the culmination of this distancing trend, the reductio ad absurdum of the civil rights paradigm.

The modern gay-rights movement is all about securing the symbols of societal acceptance. It is a defensive strategy, one that attempts to define homosexuals as an officially sanctioned victim group afflicted with an inherent disability, a disadvantage that must be compensated for legislatively. But if “gay pride” means anything, it means not wanting, needing, or seeking any sort of acceptance but self-acceptance. Marriage is a social institution designed by heterosexuals for heterosexuals: why should gay people settle for their cast-off hand-me-downs?

JC

4 Aug 12 at 1:16 am
Would you say that libertarians should have fought against interracial marriage for the same reasons?

lol, here we are again though.

If gay marriage is a civil rights issue in the same vein as last centuries, then obviously the next stop for gays is to be hitched up to the Civil Rights juggernaught. Where Chick-fil-a gets punished by the state for their discriminatory attitudes.

In any case before the law civil unions are exactly the same as marriage. So the point is totally moot, it’s a political issue driven totally by the left and nothing more.

twostix

4 Aug 12 at 1:16 am
….it’s a political issue driven totally by the left and nothing more.

Yep.. It’s the old leftist trick… create a grievance which makes a new minority and pile that group onto the others for support getting you to 51% so you can access the loot and start distributing it to constituencies to ensure reelection.

JC

4 Aug 12 at 1:21 am
Just drive myself

kelly liddle

4 Aug 12 at 1:25 am
According to GayAgenda.com, “studies show that [gay] Americans are twice as likely to have graduated from college, twice as likely to have an individual income over $60,000 and twice as likely to have a household income of $250,000 or more.”

That’s nice, but it doesn’t make up for the fact that gay couples miss out on a lot of the legal, medical and financial benefits which straight couples are eligible by virtue of marriage.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 1:26 am
That’s nice, but it doesn’t make up for the fact that gay couples miss out on a lot of the legal, medical and financial benefits which straight couples are eligible by virtue of marriage.

If there really was all of these “benefits” to marriage in 2012 there would be no defacto hetero couples.

twostix

4 Aug 12 at 1:32 am
freedom and acceptance come above money. Can give many many examples in history where this is the case. The example I like to give is Bogainville and East Timor, both were the provinces where the most was spent per capita on education and infrastructure. So does anyone here wonder why they were annoyed?

kelly liddle

4 Aug 12 at 1:33 am
If there really was all of these “benefits” to marriage in 2012 there would be no defacto hetero couples.

If you are a member of a defacto hetero couple, you have CHOSEN not to have any rights as next-of-kin when it comes to insurance, social security, inheritance, or medical decision-making.

That’s your right.

Gay couples in most places don’t have the option to either opt in or opt out like that.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 1:47 am
Dog

Just to be the devils advocate here… I also can’t get loot as a traditional owner accessing a bag of goodies, as i don’t have 1/98 aboriginal blood. I can’t go to a traditional owner’s medical clinic for instance and I don’t have Andrew Leigh saying pryers to me and my ancestors every time he commences a speech.

Heaven forbid but in the event of a dissolution in my marriage I would lose perhaps 80% although I’ve contributed perhaps all the assets.

Yes we have discrimination in the political and legal system.

So explaining gay marriage as a discrimination argument doesn’t make a huge amount of sense as there’s discrimination in lots of things. I will never access a pension most likely and thank god as that would mean horrible things.

I pay a higher rate of tax.

I’m thinking this is more of a grievance debate brought on by the left.

And the issues you touched on.. Most firms now cater for gay issues and inheritance is covered through a will which every adult ought to have of some sort.

JC

4 Aug 12 at 2:00 am
To my libertarian friends’ great credit (I am proud to count the HuffPo’s James Peron as one of those friends), they have tried to be consistent. Step away from the levers of power, everybody. Remember that if you wrest those levers from your enemies, they can wrest them from you. That’s the way democracy works.

Good Lord. An astonishingly daft essay. The Gay Taliban – including its phony libertarian supporters – simply made a strategic retreat because of the outrageous fascism displayed by the ani Chick-fil-A mob. They knew they were on a hiding to nothing.

…it is impossible to separate monotheism from homophobia, but only difficult to separate it from misogyny.

No no. Even the most godless and atheistic men and women of the past disliked homosexuality. Religion and monotheism had nothing to do with it. Most of the free-wheelin’ 60s rock ‘n rollers hated homosexuals, for example.

That, of course, is leaving aside the fact that there is no such thing as ‘homophobia.’ The word and its conceptual framework were invented (fairly recently) by homosexual controversialists in order to silence critics.

It was successful too. Most heterosexual public men now feel compelled to declare their love and admiration for all things homosexual, lest somebody suggest their ‘homophobia’ proves their closet homosexuality. I call this phenomenon the fag hag effect. It’s what led the Mayor of Boston to so Denouncingly Denounce Chick-fil-a in the first place.

C.L.

4 Aug 12 at 2:02 am
In any case before the law civil unions are exactly the same as marriage.

Not true at all.

According to GayAgenda.com, “studies show that [gay] Americans are twice as likely to have graduated from college, twice as likely to have an individual income over $60,000 and twice as likely to have a household income of $250,000 or more.”

I doubt that’s true, more likely it’s that poor and working-class gays are far more likely to be closeted, for obvious reasons.

Yobbo

4 Aug 12 at 3:13 am
BTW, it’s been less than a month since the last time I had to post this.

Here’s a pat on the head.

Abu Chowdah

4 Aug 12 at 3:47 am
Gay marriage doesn’t offend me on religious grounds. How could it? I’m not a believer.

It’s likely inevitable, if you look at recent history. If I ever think about it as a concept (separate from the “debate”) I just think of it as risible. It’s ludicruous in terms of the historical raison d’etre of marriage. But that in itself isn’t a stance, just an observation. I am a camera, as Christopher Isherwood said.

What shits me, though, is the way its proponents seek to steamroller the debate. If you voice an alternate position: you’re a hater and/or an imbecile.

In fact, that’s what shits me about a lot of what passes as “debate” these days. Such as the “who’s an aboriginal and who is allowed to discuss who’s an aboriginal” debate. Basically, the stance from the pro side on any of this is: agree or shut up. And if you don’t shut up, we’ll play the man and accuse you of bigotry and ignorance. Just look at the tenor of Yobbo’s posts. He clearly gives himself a reach around every time he posts, and casts himself as a superior thinker – and anyone who disagrees as antediluvian. When he gets in these moods he’s no better than that propagandist who does cartoons that only an Asperger’s sufferer could admire: Potemkin. Cant, cant, cant. Here’s a pat on the head and biscuit for being such a clever dog.

My only other observation on the issue (take it or leave it) is in regard to the hypocrisy. Gays and their boosters are so obsessed with cultural identity. “I can’t be who I really am until you let me marry in a church so I can be seen blah blah”. The whole history of the gay movement has been about establishing a counter-culture gay identity to fight the man. But now they want to establish their identity by subverting a key part of the identity of most of the straight world. Irony much?

Well, how about we allow gay marriage as long as every social group with an agenda gets to put a float in the gay Mardi Gras? What? Would that spoil the party and dilute the focus on gay identity? Hypocritical fags.

Abu Chowdah

4 Aug 12 at 4:08 am
I’m with Gab and Sdog on this. I think the article makes a muddle of the personal and the ethical. To declare my personal position: I’ve been an atheist since age eight: I admire the ethical position of Christians but deplore the mumbo-jumbo. I have known homosexual men, liked some and admired a few. But some, the aggressively effeminate ones, give me the creeps. I also get the creeps from others: the bloke who slavers at the prospect of being tied to a bed and having his bum caned by a woman in a nazi uniform for instance, though in that case you have to laugh. I get the same reaction to gross physical deformity, though it is tempered by pity, and I get a severe case of the creeps from Xevram and Hammygar, while not having the faintest idea of where they want to park their willies or even if they have willies to park. It’s some sort of gut response to deformity. I’m not a homophobe, I’m a creepophobe.
I don’t believe this is socially conditioned. I have almost the exactly opposite response to small children; they bring out a protective instinct and are just cute. I don’t believe that is socially conditioned either. It may be why pederasts make me murderous as well as giving me the creeps. This ends the personal.
I have absolutely no problem with people who give me the creeps having full legal rights. After all, I may give them the creeps. I originally felt in favour of gay marriage, my objection now is that I think they want to commandeer the word in the hope that they will acquire respect. This won’t work, and I don’t think anyone should be allowed to change definitions to suit their convenience. It corrupts language and hence thought, which is, of course, the idea. Trying to use the power of the state to impose prejudices of any type is just plain wrong, for so many reasons. It is also stupid.
Right, now I can go back to lurking.

DrBeauGan

4 Aug 12 at 4:40 am
FWIW Abu, I don’t see any reason or justification for governments being able to force Churches to conduct gay weddings.

I am purely interested in making sure that gay couples have the same legal rights as hetero couples. I don’t care what they call it, as long as gay couples can get the same treatment from the government.

What really irks me about this issue mostly is how the god-botherers think they have some special kind of insight into marriage, and special emotional pride at stake, because marriage was apparently invented by Jesus or something.

TLDR: In the end, what other people do shouldn’t concern you. I agree that forcing churches to marry gays in religious ceremonies is an infringement of freedom of religion. But that doesn’t mean that gays should not be allowed to marry. Religion does not own the concept of marriage.

Yobbo

4 Aug 12 at 6:37 am
To put it another way…

I think there are 2 kinds of marriage:

a:) Marriage in the eyes of the state.
b:) Marriage in the eyes of god.

I think gay couples are entitled to the first. The 2nd is dependent on whatever your particular god believes.

Yobbo

4 Aug 12 at 6:40 am
They can have a civil union this is the States form of marriage.

I think there are 2 kinds of ceremony for people who want to make a public commitment to each other:

a:) Civil union in the eyes of the state.
b:) Marriage in the eyes of god.

I think gay couples should just accept the first and leave the 2nd to those who have a particular faith or spiritual ownership with the term marriage.

Splatacrobat

4 Aug 12 at 7:15 am
I loved the article by Skepticlawyer but Rather than the issue of whether same sex marriage should be legal I latched onto the legal and cultural point about discrimination.

If a church decided it would not ordain a woman or it would not perform a same sex marriage then a large chunk of the population would say they are entitled to their beliefs. However if a church decided it would not ordain a black man or perform an inter racial marriage much of the population would call them bigots and wouldn’t feel any need to be too sensitive about their beliefs. On a cultural level it seems that some discriminatory beliefs about people and relationships are acceptable whilst other discriminatory beliefs are not. One suspects that something has to give.

In terms of the legal implications of this cultural difference Skepticlawyer points out that in the US at least a church can’t legally discriminate against black people when it comes to ordaining ministers. Yet it can when it comes to ordaining women. People don’t choose their gender any more than they choose their race.

Skepticlawyer suggests two ways out of this legal inconsistency. One is to be as ruthless against discrimination on the grounds of gender and sexuality as we are on racial discrimination. The other is to abolish anti discrimination laws. I tend towards the later option as does Skepticlawyer.

TerjeP

4 Aug 12 at 7:23 am
I think gay couples should just accept the first and leave the 2nd to those who have a particular faith or spiritual ownership with the term marriage.

The word marriage is in the constitution. It is a legal term. I don’t think religious groups own the language.

TerjeP

4 Aug 12 at 7:25 am
Yobbo,

I’m glad you finally clarified your position on state vs. church-sanctioning marriage.. cos I was about to give you an earful on the latter.

I’m all for equality before the law, but if a gay activist wants to get married in a church, I’m firmly of the opinion that the church has the right to politely decline.

FWIW, I’m with twostix. I’m in a long-term defacto relationship with many kids and don’t know of the “benefits” to marriage that I’m missing out on.

sdog.. maybe you’re referring to the US laws?

duncan

4 Aug 12 at 7:35 am
The word marriage is in the constitution. It is a legal term. I don’t think religious groups own the language.

The state appropriated the word, meaning, and interpretation lock stock and barrel from religion. Religious groups may not own the language but they are entitled to own the spiritual significance of the ceremony.

It ia all about the language and the word “marriage” for the gay Taliban. It’s all about the word nothing else.

Splatacrobat

4 Aug 12 at 7:40 am
And TBH twostix, I’m no angel. I sometimes call homosexuals words like “poofters” and “faggots” in casual conversation. I sometimes call Italians “wogs” and I sometimes call Collingwood supporters “mongoloids”.

But unlike the prim and polite Catallaxian god-botherers, I don’t want to deny any of those minority groups equal treatment under the law.

I do. Those mongoloids ought to be put on a ship sunk into the Marianas Trench.

.

4 Aug 12 at 8:09 am
Yobbo wants the State to get out of marriage and leave it to the community. But he then advocates that the law (ie the State) sanction gay marriage.

Make your mind up Yobbo. Do you want the Government in or out?

As it stands your last post is correct. Gays should have the same rights, re inheritance, property, access to loved ones in distress – hospitals etc. They have these rights now.

Marriage is and always has been (hence the term traditional) between a man and a woman. If gays want to have a specific term like gayriage then good for them, I won’t oppose it. But they can’t change the facts that for thousands of years in every culture around the world, marriage is between a man and a woman.

And FFS what has this got to do with race? No one is advocating or arguing against inter racial marriage etc.

John Comnenus

4 Aug 12 at 8:34 am
Im with Duncan. I hadnt noticed I was missing out on any ‘rights’ being in a defacto relationship. Have tested out some of those ‘rights’ that were listed, and had no issues. Havent tested out the inheritance laws yet, although been sorely tempted lately.

dianeh

4 Aug 12 at 8:46 am
Love how Yobbo turns a drive by the depraved to pervert marriage into ‘Christians hate gays, otherwise they would let the marry.’

They are trying to take a dump in the pool. They are trying to make me feel bad for not wanting them to.

Not bloody likely.

Driftforge

4 Aug 12 at 8:53 am
dump in the pool

WTF?

TerjeP

4 Aug 12 at 8:56 am
Let me be the first to say: Yes, I think they are. There’s nothing “traditional” about hetero marriage in 2012.

Well, there is, in fact. They involve the union of a man and a woman. They almost always lead to sexual intercourse, and this usually involves procreation and this requires the care and custody of children. They also involve lasting commitments. Which goes some way to explaining the fact that we can still recognize marriage in 2012 with marriage in 1012, and 12, and 998 B.C.

Traditionally, marriages were arranged by your parents and took place as soon as the female started menstruating. Marriages were traditionally more about property or power than love.

Yes, notice the relevance of procreation? That this requires a man and a woman? Notice that institutions, like marriage, are solutions to particular problems? Hmmm, I wonder, if marriage was/is the solution, what could the problem be?

Nowadays when people say “traditional marriage” they explicitly mean “No Pooftas”.

And libertarians hate the poor? Both claims are silly. The people at the forefront of promoting traditional marriage have spent more time focused on the plight of children in families, the problems of divorce and cohabitation, and have really only wondered onto the reservation of gay ‘marriage’ because of current circumstances. The only reason we are here entertaining the idea of gay ‘marriage’ is because of what has happened to marriage over the last hundred years.

What really irks me about this issue mostly is how the god-botherers think they have some special kind of insight into marriage, and special emotional pride at stake, because marriage was apparently invented by Jesus or something.

No, what irks you is that the debate obviously involves religious people, even though the arguments they deploy in defense of marriage need not be, and in many instances aren’t, religious arguments. It takes no special insight to recognize that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman but it takes some effort to forget this.

dover_beach

4 Aug 12 at 9:03 am
On a cultural level it seems that some discriminatory beliefs about people and relationships are acceptable whilst other discriminatory beliefs are not.

Yes, because some “discriminatory beliefs” may be justified while others may not. There are no laws preventing gay men and women living in marriage-like relationships right now. There are no laws preventing, now or in the future, the development of an institution that solves a particular problem associated with these relationships that is a matter of public concern.

dover_beach

4 Aug 12 at 9:16 am
There are two issues here:

1. Equality before the law (ie LGBT people wish to be equal to hetero people in law)

2. Wish of religions to protect copyright on the word and meaning of “marriage”

The problem is the secular state has gazumped the word “marriage” into secular law for historical reasons. LGBT people therefore feel insulted by not being offered that word to go with the secular legal equality already achieved by civil union legislation.

Religions are right to protect their intellectual property. LGBT people are right to seek equality before the law.

As I said the root cause of the problem is that government has not squared this circle, when they could do this very easily.

There is a very simple answer. Find and replace the word “marriage” in the Marriage Act of 1961 with the words “civil union”. You don’t even have to repeal the 2004 amendment if you do this.

Then all people would be equal before the law, religions could keep the word “marriage” for their definition. Would then no longer be this confusing secular legal usage of the word “marriage”. And LGBT people would no longer have an excuse to beat on religions.

Bruce

4 Aug 12 at 9:25 am
Terje – Like this

Driftforge

4 Aug 12 at 9:26 am
You know that ShitferBrains is going to turn up to add his eloquent missives to this thread, don’t you?
He can detect the word ‘poofter’ even if he’s dead drunk and catatonic in bed asleep.
Is this what you lot want?

You have been warned…

Winston Smith

4 Aug 12 at 9:45 am
If a church decided it would not ordain a woman or it would not perform a same sex marriage then a large chunk of the population would say they are entitled to their beliefs. However if a church decided it would not ordain a black man or perform an inter racial marriage much of the population would call them bigots and wouldn’t feel any need to be too sensitive about their beliefs. On a cultural level it seems that some discriminatory beliefs about people and relationships are acceptable whilst other discriminatory beliefs are not. One suspects that something has to give.

Its not simply “cultural” TerjeP.

Your ‘argument’ is nothing more than facile sophistry.

In human history – say all 6000 years of written records – there has never been SSM anywhere.

Grow up.

There is discrimination all around us.

Our minds are structured to discriminate.

That’s not just “cultural” it’s biology.

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 9:50 am
sdog.. maybe you’re referring to the US laws?

Yes, I am. Because SL’s article and the whole Chick-Fil-A kerfuffle is about the US and its laws, not Australia and its laws.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 11:27 am
The problem is the secular state has gazumped the word “marriage” into secular law for historical reasons.

This always comes up, but it’s wrong on its face. Marriage, understood as a relationship between the sexes, is neither secular or religious.

LGBT people are right to seek equality before the law.

It’s incredible that people fall for this trope. They are equal before the law now. It’s simply the case that gay relationships are not married relationships.
The obvious quality that gay relationships lack preclude it from enjoying the rights or being burdened by the duties that marriage involves. It really is that simple.

dover_beach

4 Aug 12 at 11:31 am
Christians hate gay marriage because they hate gays, end of story.

I am Christian, my nephew whom I love very much is gay and I am against SSM.

Helen Armstrong

4 Aug 12 at 11:50 am
ok.. the US has a veritable crapload of extra rights attached to married couples.

Not suprisingly, most are for armed force personnel, public servants and tax reasons.

duncan

4 Aug 12 at 11:52 am
Black Pastor Slams Obama Conflating Civil Rights with Same-Sex Marriage

William Owens, Sr., a black pastor and veteran of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, spoke at the National Press Club on Tuesday to announce that a group he founded, the Coalition of African-American Pastors, is leading the charge against President Obama’s recently announced support of gay marriage.

In an emotionally charged speech, Owens vowed that his group would vigorously oppose the President so long as he supported gay marriage:

The President is in the White House because of the Civil Rights movement, and I was a leader in that movement.

And I didn’t march one inch, one foot, one yard for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman.

So the president has forgotten the price that was paid, where people died, where they suffered, where they gave their blood to have equal rights in the United States.

This is the kind of thing I mean when I keep pointing out that I think it’s really, really unhelpful for gays to keep co-opting the black civil rights struggle and pretend that they have the “right” to steal all the blood shed by blacks and their white supporters for their very different cause.

Gay rights activists need to come up with their own story, their own narrative. What gays in America face is NOTHING like what black Americans faced, and it’s a bad look to piggyback your cause on theirs.

Gays need to use their own stories and their own struggles, but don’t pretend anyone in today’s America puts firehoses on you if you try to eat in straights-only cafes or hangs you from trees or makes you drink from separate water fountains or jails or murders you for sleeping with someone of the same sex or legislates that your kids can only attend second-rate “gays-only” schools, or any of that-all.

Even white evangelicals are moving towards acceptance of gay rights faster than black Americans are. Stop devaluing their unique cultural and historic story.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 12:09 pm
This is the kind of thing I mean when I keep pointing out that I think it’s really, really unhelpful for gays to keep co-opting the black civil rights struggle

The million man march on Washington should be fabulous.

Infidel Tiger

4 Aug 12 at 12:15 pm
ok.. the US has a veritable crapload of extra rights attached to married couples.

Yes, and as I said I think a lot of Americans, whatever their religion, have been moving towards acceptance of closing that equality gap.

But extreme Left gays rights activists constantly spitting in their faces, harassing and bullying them, is doing that cause more harm than good. What we need is calm, mature, respectful dialogue, not vandalism, bullying of minimum wage drive-thru window girls and bomb threats called in to fast food restaurants.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 12:16 pm
closing that equality gap

What equality gap? Any man or woman can get married. What we are concerned with here is the demand we transform an institution so that it now includes a relationship within the sexes and not only one between the sexes. So it is not even a question about equality, unless, of course, what is meant by ‘marriage equality’ is the attempt to enforce equal recognition of two different relationships.

dover_beach

4 Aug 12 at 12:39 pm
equality gap

How come there are no heterosexual floats in the Sydney Mardi Gras?

It’s like they’re definitionally excluded or something.

C.L.

4 Aug 12 at 12:44 pm
I am Christian, my nephew whom I love very much is gay and I am against SSM.

No that can’t be right. In Yobboworld that simply doesn’t hold water.

Gab

4 Aug 12 at 12:46 pm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154634/Acceptance-Gay-Lesbian-Relations-New-Normal.aspx

3 out of 4 people who oppose same-sex marriage don’t think homosexuality should legal at all. Opposing SSM might not mean you don’t like gays, but it is a pretty good indication.

AJ

4 Aug 12 at 1:14 pm
What equality gap?

The gap in legal, financial, inheritance and medical rights between gay couples and married couples in the States. See Duncan at 11:52am.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 1:21 pm
3 out of 4 people who oppose same-sex marriage don’t think homosexuality should legal at all.

Where did you get this assertion AJ?

As far as I can see it is not in your hyperlinked article

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 1:23 pm
And for the record, I think the focus on co-opting the term “marriage” is misguided and counter-productive. The highest priority should be getting a legal framework in place where gay couples can sign up for a legally-binding state (civil unions, whatever) which will fix the inequality issue.

Too many Americans see the attempt to change the meaning of a word — which already has a widely-accepted and special definition for the majority of citizens — they see it as angry gay leftists who hold them and all they hold dear in absolute contempt just spitting on them for the hell of it.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 1:26 pm
Opposing SSM might not mean you don’t like gays, but it is a pretty good indication..

65% of American whites think that gay/lesbian relations should be legal, yet of that 65%, only 49% say they support “gay marriage.”

You cannot argue that everyone who opposes “gay marriage” just hates gays.

These are people who by and large support gay rights, yet you’re shitting on them because they won’t let you bastardise a term with a long-held meaning that a lot of people hold dear.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 1:37 pm
I find SL’s use of the word “queer” really really ugly.

Gab

4 Aug 12 at 1:46 pm
Opposing SSM might not mean you don’t like gays, but it is a pretty good indication..

And by the way, until a few weeks ago Obama opposed SSM. So does Gillard and so did Rudd. They must hate gays too.

Why did you never think to stage one of your abusive harassment campaigns against them?

Because it’s not so much about the fact that you NEEEEEED! to call gay partnerships “marriage” as the fact that you just want to spit on “the right”.

And many on “the right” – who otherwise would support you – are on to you, and are getting jack of it.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 1:50 pm
~~Opposing~~ Fanatically pushing SSM might not mean you don’t like ~~gays~~ heterosexuals and Christians, but it is a pretty good indication…

See how easy that was?

C.L.

4 Aug 12 at 1:53 pm
I find SL’s use of the word “queer” really really ugly.

There’s a interdisciplinary Department of Queer Studies in the Liberal Arts School of the Uni I went to, Gab. You can take courses in “Queer Theory and the Crises of Capitalism” and “Black Queer Studies”.

It’s a thing. Apparently.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 1:57 pm
It still rankles, Spot. It’s like calling someone with autism “retarded”. I just find it offensive.

Gab

4 Aug 12 at 2:00 pm
That, of course, is leaving aside the fact that there is no such thing as ‘homophobia.’ The word and its conceptual framework were invented (fairly recently) by homosexual controversialists in order to silence critics.

I’ll accept that homophobia is over-used, a word that tends to be applied in all manner of contexts. However homophobia – ie hatred of homosexuals – does exist. Observe the fact that in countries like Iran, gays are executed. Noq rhat’s homophobia.

dd

4 Aug 12 at 2:02 pm
“Now that’s” /typo correction

dd

4 Aug 12 at 2:02 pm
(By the way, that Uni is up to $53,905 per year now, or over $215,000 for a four-year degree… remember all those college grad Occutards whinging about how much in debt they were with no job prospects in sight? Yeah…)

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 2:06 pm
However homophobia – ie hatred of homosexuals – does exist.

“phobia” does not mean “hatred of”.

Words mean things.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 2:07 pm
It’s 85k per year with dorm and some spending money, dog

Jc

4 Aug 12 at 2:11 pm
yeah but they don’t always mean what the exact etymological breakdown might imply. In this case, even though ‘phobia’ is fear, that’s not how it’s used. I suspect the crossover for ‘phobia’ style words to mean hatred or prejudice occurred with the rise of the word xenophobia.

dd

4 Aug 12 at 2:13 pm
This.

Some people will tell you that there’s a big political unspoken issue regarding gay marriage in this too, but that’s nonsense. It’s all about money, folks. The women in gay bars don’t tip well, they don’t treat the staffs of other patrons well (in general), and they drive business away. No one is jealous these women are getting married. None of us want to be in their weddings. None of us wish we could have a “bachelorette party” too. Because, frankly, we can have any sort of party we want, any day of the week, and it’s guaranteed to be fabulous. There’s a better chance than not that Cyndi Lauper or Liza Minnelli would stop by, or even perform, and the whole thing would be like an elaborate photo shoot for Vogue. No one is stopping any gay from having a party and calling it whatever he wants. And no one is stopping any of us from getting “married” either — because we know of about five “married” gay male couples who had a commitment ceremony, and a big party, and did gay “bachelor” parties too. A good lawyer, the right paperwork, and legally binding contractual agreements can give two guys (or two women) the same legal rights that Britney Spears had with that guy she was married to for about fifteen hours. It might take more work, and more creativity on the part of a good lawyer, but if a gay can dream it in this world, he can use some of his magic to make it happen.

There just needs to be another word invented for it than “marriage”, because we think that word should be reserved for people who had a religious ceremony. Everyone should have to go to city hall and file paperwork for a civil union…and then people who belong to churches or temples or whatever can get “married” in a sacramental ceremony of their choosing. Just as we all get birth certificates, but the religious then get baptized afterwards. The state does not baptize, and the state should not marry. It should only join in legal unions…of which any two consenting adults of legal age should be able to enter into together.

“Partnership” is not a good word, because it’s already taken by lawyers and others in business relationships. “Spousehood” is something we’ve tried to use, but it’s so awkward. One day, it will hit us like lightning what a word for two guys together, legally joined would be…and what a corresponding word for two lesbians would be. Then, there would be correct verbiage for all possible variations on the them: marriage, for straight people who had a religious ceremony…domestic partnership for straight people who are joined by the state but who did not have a religious ceremony…”X” for two men joined by the state…and “Y” for two lesbians joined by the state. Maybe two more options would be created for two men and two women who go on to have some sort of religious ceremony of their own in the future, after the state joining. You could spend all day obsessing over verbiage and semantics like this, and it’s honestly too gorgeous of an end of summer day to do that.

As someone who’s come out of the closet as a rabid papist, ultimately I don’t give a toss who you want to shag.

It’s not my job to tell you yea or nay, because I’ve got my own path to walk and my own Cross to bear. I’ve made plenty of dodgy decisions and will no doubt continue to do that.

If a gay friend of mine wanted me to stand with him as he made a lifetime commitment to a friend, then I would stand with him.

If he wanted a marriage ceremony in my church, I would stand in front of him.

And, yes, I’m happy to tell my gay friends this. It’s not about who they bump uglies with. It’s about my God, and what I consider to be a major sacrilege.

I’m pretty tolerant on issues of sexuality, but there is a line that is not to be crossed.

In any case, these days I’m all about abstinence. There should be more of it.

nilk

4 Aug 12 at 2:22 pm
I suspect the crossover for ‘phobia’ style words to mean hatred or prejudice occurred with the rise of the word xenophobia.

Xenophobia simply means “fear of strangers or outsiders”. It was a very valid protective evolutionary mechanism back in the day.

The fact is that most people who are opposed to changing the definition of the word “marriage” are not “afraid” of homosexuals. If that were the case you’d have to claim that not a few homosexuals are afraid of themselves.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 2:23 pm
Intolerance of intolerance to tolerance. Or something. Oh screw it: Jesus Is a C*nt!

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-kiss-in-hollywood-the-pictures/

Gab

4 Aug 12 at 2:27 pm
“I just want a little more tolera… F*** YOU PEOPLE AND YOUR G**DAMN CHICKEN!”— Political Math (@politicalmath) August 3, 2012

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 2:38 pm
Great pics, Gab. I expect Zombie may have some up later too.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 2:41 pm
What shits me, though, is the way its proponents seek to steamroller the debate. If you voice an alternate position: you’re a hater and/or an imbecile.

Happens here, everyday.

Dead Soul

4 Aug 12 at 2:46 pm
Happens here, everyday.

You mean the Finkelstinians who want to use the might of the State to shut down all voices they don’t agree with?

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 2:50 pm
John H

You really need stop top the whining. It’s getting to be a habit.

JC

4 Aug 12 at 2:57 pm
Police called to ‘kiss in’ location; Media harassing Chick-fil-A employees

Oi.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 3:08 pm
Xenophobia simply means “fear of strangers or outsiders”. It was a very valid protective evolutionary mechanism back in the day.

Sure. But it’s more used as fancy way of referring to racism these days.
The meaning of words evolves. Homophobia is rarely, if ever, used to mean “fear of homosexuals”. I doubt that the Mullahs of Iran execute gays out of fear. More likely it’s loathing.

My point was that it exists.

dd

4 Aug 12 at 3:12 pm
I expect Zombie may have some up later too.

Damn you Spot.
You’ve caused me to remember that photo essay.

lotocoti

4 Aug 12 at 3:15 pm
John H

You really need stop top the whining. It’s getting to be a habit.

I rest my case.

Dead Soul

4 Aug 12 at 3:16 pm
AJ:
3 out of 4 people who oppose same-sex marriage don’t think homosexuality should legal at all. Opposing SSM might not mean you don’t like gays, but it is a pretty good indication.

Yes, it is a good indication that they disapprove of homosexuality; not so much they hate homosexuals. Thinking X should be illegal doesn’t mean you hate people that engage in X.

sdog:
The gap in legal, financial, inheritance and medical rights between gay couples and married couples in the States.

What about the “gap in legal, financial, inheritance and medical rights” between friends and married couples? At some point in this debate some thought has to be given to the fact that these rights and duties relate to the institution and not to the participants.

dover_beach

4 Aug 12 at 3:18 pm
No you’re lying JohnH. You’re always whining along the same lines and telling you that it’s getting annoying has nothing to do with resting your case. You possibly don’t understand what it means.

JC

4 Aug 12 at 3:19 pm
Oh, classy!

Gay Rights Activist photoshops Ku Klux Klan hoods over a pic of African-Americans to mock Chick-Fil-A

By the way, that’s on SooperMexican’s blog, and just because he’s not white he’s apparently fair game to the oh-so-tolerant Angry Gay Left.

Seriously, people. Genuine sober respectable intelligent supporters of gay rights should be the FIRST to condemn this sort of disgusting shit.

sdog

4 Aug 12 at 3:33 pm
Seriously, people. Genuine sober respectable intelligent supporters of gay rights should be the FIRST to condemn this sort of disgusting shit.

I think the ones we know would. I think the ones that create this drama queening are actually in the minority.

Those involved in this are the lefting gays and ought to be be treated with the same contempt as other leftwing morons.

JC

4 Aug 12 at 3:40 pm
So nice to see ‘progressives’ pause for a thought, and have that thought entail that it might be useful to take ‘a step away from the levers of power’ on some issues. Please send the good word to Judges Mordy and the Finkelstein.

SL’s article is typically ‘academic on holiday sounding-off’ and as such is hardly what I would call ‘important’. It is not much more than a collection of impressions; it is certainly not well-organised nor, as people have pointed out here, is the argumentation based on historical accuracy about homosexual behaviour. Its view of monotheistic religious beliefs and and earlier belief systems is simplistic and there is no discussion of procreation and the ‘rights’ of children, who do enter into the arena of ‘gay’ marriage and ‘gay’ parenting.

(JC recently referenced a large-scale randomised sample study that suggested children were best served by two biological parents; in contrast to the ‘convenience’ samples often used to show otherwise. This research has resulted in ad hominem vilification by gays of the author and attempts to silence him.)

A core of LE’s argument is that politicians are better producers of rights legislation than judges, but this is then left hanging, as her piece concentrates on American exampling and the American legal system. Within this, LE says giving ‘rights’ on the basis of race but not on the basis of other things is a refusal to treat all rights claims as alike, and is thus ‘an attack on the first principle of the rule of law’. This is nonsense, as should be clear from many comments on this thread so far. Race is an entirely separate issue of ‘civil rights’ in America because it once entailed slavery. Nothing else comes close to it in terms of an original sin against the spirit of freedom enshrined in the American Constitution.

All other angsts are merely part of social and economic interactions producing political pressures as people seek the only true rights, so well stated as ‘life, liberty and the pursuit happiness’. The stark choice LE presents, between ending the distinction between types of rights, or abolishing all rights, is a non sequetur. It does not follow that all types of claims to ‘rights’ have equal validity, even if they are in the favoured, and largely manufactured, arenas of what LE calls ‘sex’ and ‘orientation’. Sex is a given in life (you are one or the other sex), like visible racial membership, but sex as a category is immeasurably different to race in applying a genuine disadvantage, never entailing slavery in the same way as race. As for orientation, this is your own business and nobody else’s as far as I and most others these days are concerned.

I’m not fond of the idea of rights, although we all think in terms of them for our own purposes and when we are trying to be ethical. Very fundamentally, people have rights to not be slaves, and rights to knowing who they are and where they come from – ie rights to a biological family where possible. That’ll do me.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

4 Aug 12 at 3:45 pm
Perhaps less so than among homo sapiens.

Less homosexuals in your homo dementis species febbie?

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 3:45 pm
Lizzie, you seem to have substituted LE for SL for some reason; it should be SL all the way down.

dover_beach

4 Aug 12 at 3:55 pm
How many of you completely missed the point of his article?

He was saying that the discrimination is part of their religion, and asking them to give it up is like asking them to give up belief in god. This is also why the same people hate evolution and do not believe that death is final etc.

Mundi

4 Aug 12 at 4:03 pm
How does one “hate” evolution?

Gab

4 Aug 12 at 4:04 pm
He was saying

By “he” do you mean the author of the article by Skepticlawyer, who happens to be a female?

Gab

4 Aug 12 at 4:06 pm
Dover – my apologies to SL and LE. They are both on the same site, and I did once have a run-it with LE to the extent that I refuse to leave comment on that site so perhaps I have a synapse having a snap there too. Also, when writing my comment I had just got in from the gym – thus a bit light-headed.

Thank you for pointing this out – proof-reading a long comment means you concentrate on the argument, and certainly no deliberate confusion was meant.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

4 Aug 12 at 4:10 pm
How many of you completely missed the point of his article?

Fme there was a point to SL’s crappy, poorly written, scatty and studiously ignorant article?

I’ll take your word for it. Well spotted Mundi.

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 4:25 pm
He was saying that the discrimination is part of their religion

Mundi, what utter rot. Does the Catholic Church deny the possibility of salvation to homosexuals I and didn’t get the memo? Are they denied the sacrament of confession?

Oh, no worries, Lizzie.

dover_beach

4 Aug 12 at 4:28 pm
never entailing slavery in the same way as race.

I trust it is clear that my reference here is to America and its history.

Of course women have been favoured items for slavery in many cultures in past eras, and still are in some. That there may be a special case for having certain ‘rights’ for women could well be favoured on these grounds alone, although I think this extends the rights discussion too far into the miseries of all past slavery and injustice; too many people of all types have been horrifically wronged. Little point in going there, I think. The idea of freedom for all today covers all past wrongs, but slavery in America stood as a special case.

Interesting point made by SL (got that right!) that a strict interpretation of the Koran permits slavery.

In pre-Christian Ireland the word for wealth, ie. store of value and medium of exchange, was the same as the word for a female slave.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

4 Aug 12 at 4:29 pm
OK, so I have to be the “elephant in the room” guy.
If anyone in any western country is going to have a spaz attack over someone opposing gay marriage, they can just take it right down to the local mosque. After that, I’ll agree to discuss the subject with them. Maybe.

blogstrop

4 Aug 12 at 4:54 pm
The unreal part about this is that the discussion is taking place in the context of discrimination.

We don’t talk about lying, about drug addiction, about promiscuity in terms of discrimination. They are social ills; damaging to society more so than the individual.

And yes, in the literal sense we do discriminate against all of those things. It’s not an issue, because it is so bleedingly obvious that they should be discriminated against.

The issue is not discrimination against homosexuality; its that we’ve blithely accepted a redefinition of what category homosexuality fits into.

Driftforge

4 Aug 12 at 5:30 pm
This will be my first post on this site. Anyway…

I have to say that I am in general agreement with dover_beach. I don’t find the equality or civil rights arguement to be particularly strong. No-one is preventing same-sex couples from having their own private ceremonies in which they commit themselves to each other. There is no blocking them from having unofficial marriages. What is being denied is government recognition of these unions and the legal status that comes with that.

Is denial of recognition a civil rights issue? I don’t think so. Is it unfair that the legal status is reserved for man/woman relationship? The question should be… Why should the legal rights that are designed for man/woman relationships be transferred to another group? This especially applies to the raising of children, since same sex relations can’t produce children they don’t really need the legal framework.

What SSM gives is official approval of homosexual relationships and allow them the same legal status as conventional marriages. It means that they can not be viewed any differently than a married couple when it comes to adoption etc. From someone who has a philosophy that children should be raised by their biological parents or the closest arrangement to that, that is possible. With this in mind why should they have the same standing as married couples and greater standing than singles, brother/sister relationships and polygamists?

There are other things that marriage gives but surely there are other ways of giving these things than by giving a group that has little need for marriage, the institution itself.

In summary the push for SSM is not about needs. But more about recognition and clout.

JohnB

4 Aug 12 at 6:23 pm
How come there are no heterosexual floats in the Sydney Mardi Gras?

It’s like they’re definitionally excluded or something.

Which was the point I made earlier.

Abu Chowdah

4 Aug 12 at 6:47 pm
Happens here, everyday.

On a small private blog with a small but keen following.

VERSUS

The majority of the MSM.

I know it’s a bit difficult to understand so don’t be surprised if you don’t understand, John.

Abu Chowdah

4 Aug 12 at 7:47 pm
I am still unable to reconcile the tasteless gay Mardi Gras with the oft proposed though largely self-appointed status of the gay mafia as arbiters of taste.
Conclusion: it’s more of a rubber hose up your nose (or some other orifice).
Bad look, along with the Sleaze Ball.

blogstrop

4 Aug 12 at 8:10 pm
Timely.

What’s with Labor governments deciding to do damage on the way out?

Driftforge

4 Aug 12 at 9:50 pm
“If Parliaments of the past did not have the courage to respond to changing community values then Tasmania would still be a state where homosexuality is illegal, where women don’t have the vote and no apology has been made to the Aboriginal stolen generations.”

See? It’s about courage, which you all obviously lack.

Courage and a big hot cup of smug. Mmmm-mmm. Smuu-u—uuug.

Abu Chowdah

4 Aug 12 at 10:28 pm
Dear god, another thinly-veiled “all conservative Christians – and I am especially looking at you Catholics – are homophobes, mysogynists and troglodytes but I am just so tolerant” ramble from the self-obsessed Skepticlaywer.
*yawn*

CC

4 Aug 12 at 11:06 pm
Back in the day, an old University mate of mine, Rodney Croome used to be (very bravely) protesting about reforms to the criminal law.
• Rod even went into a police station a confessed to abominations against nature, as the Tasmanian criminal code called it. It was a gender neutral prohibition.
• The police said they could not prosecute without the other party coming forward as the witness. He did.
• The Tassie DPP then declined to prosecute on public interest grounds. this part of his discretion to prosecute is absolute.

These days, Rod campaigns for the right to marry.

All inside one generation! What a great country is Australia.

A few years before Rod’s criminal confession, a gay men’s social club sought to affiliate with the student’s union, I seconded the motion. I was representing a catholic residential college students club on the student union’s social council. no one noticed the irony.

The motion passed on the voices with few voting either for it or against it. The liberal club member who was chair of the meeting wisely chose to not ask for a show of hands. He declared the motion carried and quickly moved to the next item of business.

I often use the rapid social change such as the above when I must listen to someone drone on how preferences and social roles are socially constructed. They missed the 20th century, and the 60s and 70s at least.

When I was growing-up, racist sentiments were common. I could not understand why someone would want to be so cruel to people they did not know. Times have changed.

Society has come so far. Why over-reach?

Jim Rose

4 Aug 12 at 11:34 pm
You sound like a leftist trumpeting that progress is inevitable Jim.

It is isn’t it?

Seriously Jim have you smoked some sh1t today?

JamesK

4 Aug 12 at 11:40 pm
The audacity of hope. You can smell it.

Abu Chowdah

4 Aug 12 at 11:52 pm
Dear god, another thinly-veiled “all conservative Christians – and I am especially looking at you Catholics – are homophobes, mysogynists and troglodytes

That shoe fits relatively comfortably.

Show me a monotheistic religion that displays none of those characteristics.

Yobbo

5 Aug 12 at 6:29 am
Why are you such a gay apologist, Yobbo? Is there something you want to tell us?

Blogstrop

5 Aug 12 at 7:31 am
Possibly because he doesn’t profess a faith that forces him to believe that there is something evil about being gay?

Quentin George

5 Aug 12 at 8:27 am
Possibly because he doesn’t profess a faith that forces him to believe that there is something evil about being gay?

Actually no.

Agitating for the right of gays to marry is deemed an “ideology of evil”.

The Church says:

To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood

JamesK

5 Aug 12 at 8:46 am
Thank you James, for proving my point. You seem to think that posting the creed of a religion is going to win an argument. It doesn’t.

Quentin George

5 Aug 12 at 9:20 am
This religious shit is tiresome.

Abu Chowdah

5 Aug 12 at 9:23 am
So is gay activism.

blogstrop

5 Aug 12 at 10:00 am
Yep.

Abu Chowdah

5 Aug 12 at 10:11 am
I know, let’s pass a law that says everyone is gay and black and Muslim and male, and then there will be no more discrimination.

So what then would become the new big whine? Inequality of odd socks in the sock drawer?

Helen Armstrong

5 Aug 12 at 10:37 am
You seem to think that posting the creed of a religion is going to win an argument. It doesn’t.

Desist from being a tosser for once Quentin.

It wasn’t an argument.

It was a correction of your misrepresentation.

JamesK

5 Aug 12 at 10:38 am
It all comes back to the government stepping in and short circuiting the societal processes that normally function to prevent this and other forms of social disorder from taking hold.

Now, we suffer the situation where a social disorder that would normally be kept within tolerable bounds has grown under legal protection to be of scale that the disorder now threatens social order itself. It has become so commonplace that many fail to recognise that it is a disorder.

And so, we are faced with becoming a legally depraved society, or paying the immense social cost of putting the genie back in the bottle. Either way, because the normal social processes were inhibited, we now face a generational division being entrenched within society.

It’s not enough just to say no to this defining change. The abrogation of our communal responsibility for discrimination must be addressed.

Driftforge

5 Aug 12 at 12:45 pm
jamesK, gay rights is a by-product of capitalism

• As market production became separated from household production in the nineteenth century, the need to marry based on economic considerations declined.

• Young people were more able to create marriages based on romantic love and other forms of emotional and psychological compatibility. Increasingly families became concerned with psychological and emotional fulfilment.

Being able to live independently and save for retirement etc., meant that more people could choose to not have children and still not, as a result, be a burden to others when old or sick.

Doug Allen argues that marriage is an 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.

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 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 and alimony 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.

Marriage may provide a poor match for the incentive problems that arise in the relationships of 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

5 Aug 12 at 1:01 pm
see http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/07/capitalism-facilitated-gay-marriage/ for a talk by steve horwitz

Gay marriage, single parenthood, granny living separately are all things that require money to make happen.

Jim Rose

5 Aug 12 at 1:04 pm
jamesK, gay rights is a by-product of capitalism

Evidence for that?

Even if it is true – only for the sake of argument – so what?

JamesK

5 Aug 12 at 1:06 pm
Gay marriage, single parenthood, granny living separately are all things that require money to make happen.

Money makes some things heretofore impossible or difficult, possible and/or easy.

But yet again: so what?

Are you arguing that because an certain individual can afford only a population of cheaper HIV endemically infected prostitutes, he should make whoopee with them?

And transferable to a societal population, maybe some will but that doesn’t address morality

JamesK

5 Aug 12 at 1:12 pm
Thank you James, for proving my point. You seem to think that posting the creed of a religion is going to win an argument. It doesn’t.

Quentin, sorry, but JamesK simply responded with a quotation from that faith that confounds the claim you made that that faith believes there is “something evil being gay”.

dover_beach

5 Aug 12 at 1:49 pm
Show me a monotheistic religion that displays none of those characteristics.

Sounds like someone lost an argument.

dover_beach

5 Aug 12 at 1:53 pm
see http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2011/05/the-hayekian-case-for-legalizing-same-sex-marriage.html?cid=6a00d83451eb0069e2014e88984930970d

a rather good defence of social evolution through expirimentation. rules have to obtain the approval of society at large – not by a formal vote, but by gradually speading acceptance.

Jim Rose

5 Aug 12 at 5:28 pm
Show me a monotheistic religion…? Buddism?

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientation

Jim Rose

5 Aug 12 at 6:15 pm
Buddhism is not a religion nor is there belief in a god.

Gab

5 Aug 12 at 6:20 pm
gab, Buddhism is a religion indigenous to the Indian subcontinent that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs, and practices.

a religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

What qualifies as a religion? Philosophers and scholars have found the definition of religion to be elusive.

Hindu Carvaka and Buddhism that contain no deities.

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons.

The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

Jim Rose

5 Aug 12 at 6:29 pm
Social evolution? Sounds teleological to me.

dover_beach

5 Aug 12 at 6:31 pm
The Supreme Court is free to and can define Buddhism as suits the legalities in that country. There is no “faith” in Buddhism. The first thing we were taught was it is not a religion, rather a philosophy and there is no deity to worship.

“Buddhism does not accept a theory of God, or a creator. According to Buddhism, one’s own actions are the creator, ultimately. Some people say that, from a certain angle, Buddhism is not a religion but rather a science of mind. Religion has much involvement with faith. Sometimes it seems that there is quite a distance between a way of thinking based on faith and one entirely based on experiment, remaining skeptical. Unless you find something through investigation, you do not want to accept it as fact. From one viewpoint, Buddhism is a religion, from another viewpoint Buddhism is a science of mind and not a religion. Buddhism can be a bridge between these two sides. Therefore, with this conviction I try to have closer ties with scientists, mainly in the fields of cosmology, psychology, neurobiology and physics. In these fields there are insights to share, and to a certain extent we can work together.”

– Tenzin Gyatso.

Gab

5 Aug 12 at 6:44 pm
Gab is correct, Buddhism is not theistic.

Jarrah

5 Aug 12 at 7:11 pm
BTW, Jim, Hayek’s, and Horowitz’s argument is not very good. Promiscuity seems to have generally obtained the approval of society at large, so Hayek, and Horowtiz must conclude that this constitutes “not a moral decline, even though they offended inherited sentiments, but a necessary condition to the rise of the open society of free men.” Really?

There is, however, something to be said for the claim that “recognizing the conflict between a given rule and the rest of our moral beliefs that we can justify our rejection of an established rule” although there is no reason to believe that the resolution of this incoherence is best left to society at large.

dover_beach

5 Aug 12 at 7:19 pm
Oh, look!

Here are more of those tolerance-preaching gay rights activists, winning friends and influencing people.

By monstering an elderly homeless black man. NOH8, guys! NOH8!

And that’s after the acts of vandalism, the bomb threats called in, the disgusting bullying of a young minimum wage drive-thru window girl…

So which would I prefer – traditional Judeo-Christian values, or modern progressive values…?

sdog

5 Aug 12 at 7:42 pm
Promiscuity seems to have generally obtained the approval of society at large,

Depends how you define promiscuity, because I wouldn’t really say that statement is true. Society has decided to ‘come clean’ about having more than one partner, parters outside of marriage, and that laws shouldn’t dictate individual sexual choices. Society (everywhere) has been doing this for a long time, they’ve just decided to be open about it.

The notion that anyone, either male or female, should sleep around randomly or carelessly, or make decisions on a hedonistic basis alone is rejected by the vast majority of society.

John Mc

5 Aug 12 at 7:49 pm
The addition of laws dictating sexual choices is irrelevant; I’m talking about social mores. The ‘coming clean’ you’re talking about is saying that this style of promiscuity is fine (having consecutive g/fs or b/fs) and thus no longer what we mean by promiscuity, while this other style of promiscuity (one night stands, etc.) is not fine and thus what we now mean by promiscuity. Although, for the life of me, I don’t know how you can say that the latter is more or less rejected by the vast majority of society; no one bats an eyelid about one night stands. Sexuality in popular culture, nowadays, is nothing more than “mak[ing] decisions on a hedonistic basis alone.

dover_beach

5 Aug 12 at 8:09 pm
Love it. Black, christian conservatives at Chick-fil-A.

Love this even more. Adam Smith (abused the girl at the window at Chick-fil-A, filmed it, youtubed it and lost his job) apologises.

HAHAHAHAHHAHA!

nilk

5 Aug 12 at 8:39 pm
Suck that, Adam Smith. Nice resolution.

Be better if he ended up flipping burgers somewhere…

Abu Chowdah

5 Aug 12 at 8:43 pm
Love it. Black, christian conservatives at Chick-fil-A.

And the tolerant #NOH8 gay-left photoshopped Ku Klux Klan hoods onto them.

Seriously.

This is why I saw SL & others don’t have a fucking clue when she talks about the angry gay left being the spiritual brethren/inheritors of the black civil rights movement

The angry gay left movement is all about hate. They hate Christians, they hate straights, they hate hispanics, they hate blacks…

It’s all they’re about – hate.

sdog

5 Aug 12 at 8:53 pm
Antoine’s commentary.

Someone else you’ve gotta love.

nilk

5 Aug 12 at 9:08 pm
No doubt there will be a legal challenge and it will end up in the high court if it passes the parliament, but there will be a rather happy irony if Tasmania manages to legislate for gay marriage because of a loophole in Howard’s change to the marriage act (he only defined what was a marriage, not what wasn’t allowing the states to expand on that definition).

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/tassies-gay-marriage-tours-20120804-23mad.html

Chris

5 Aug 12 at 11:07 pm
What discrimination is Giddings talking about? I thought civil unions enabled those in committed same-sex relationships to enjoy essentially the same rights as those enjoyed in marriage in Tasmania. This issue is really nothing more than the peddling of nonsense.

dover_beach

5 Aug 12 at 11:47 pm
Mmmm. A nice hot cup of smug and sanctimony.

Abu Chowdah

6 Aug 12 at 12:43 am
For a heterosexual couple travelling overseas they will find in some countries that their civil union is not recognized, whereas if married it would be. Not sure to what extent that would be true for homosexual couples – some countries will decide not to recognize an Australian homosexual marriage anyway..

But I’d guess Giddings is simply talking about the legal ability to get married. If in essence it just comes down to nomenclature than those opposing the change are on pretty weak ground anyway as having two separate but identical systems is just wasteful bureaucracy.

FWIW if marriage is such an important term to some people I think the government should just remove the term from all legislation (perhaps use civil unions instead). Then leave it up to private organizations, whether they be religious or not to confer the term marriage wherever they see fit. That way those who want to place extra restrictions on what they consider to be marriage will be much freer to do so without affecting anyone else.

Chris

6 Aug 12 at 12:52 am
For a heterosexual couple travelling overseas they will find in some countries that their civil union is not recognized, whereas if married it would be.
#FIRSTWORLDPROBLEMS.

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 1:02 am
FWIW if marriage is such an important term to some people I think the government should just remove the term from all legislation (perhaps use civil unions instead). Then leave it up to private organizations, whether they be religious or not to confer the term marriage wherever they see fit.

I wonder what planet Chris hails from?

The vast majority of people even these days and whether religious or not want to get married and have that ‘marriage’ recognised in law and by society in general.

They are – quite rightly – not gonna tolerate Chris-type insane non-solution solutions to a non-problem from their perspective.

Moreover if I’m married, as a Jew for example, then the Mulsim community (or indeed any other non-Jew) are not likely to recognise my marriage etc etc … and that’s before we talk of recognition from other countries.

The best argument for SSM is that same sex couples who would want to get married are deprived of the romance of marriage.

They are and I completely empathise.

The only other argument is the ‘discrimination’ argument which is almost laughable and certainly piss-weak

Marriage is a cornerstone if not the cornerstone institution of our society and culture.

SSM, on the other hand, has never ever existed in 6000 years of recorded human history.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 1:12 am
Gab – contrary to the doomsayers we still live in a first world country but such recognition is non trivial if for example your partner falls sick but the medical personnel decline to recognize you as more than “a friend” when it comes to decisions about medical care. Or perhaps even let you see your partner.

Chris

6 Aug 12 at 1:16 am
The vast majority of people even these days and whether religious or not want to get married and have that ‘marriage’ recognised in law and by society in general.

Marriage “rights” will still be recognised, just called something else.

Moreover if I’m married, as a Jew for example, then the Mulsim community (or indeed any other non-Jew) are not likely to recognise my marriage etc etc …

Why does it matter if one section of the community recognises another’s marriage? Some religions already have different standards for who they will marry in their church. When it comes to legal issues, they will recognise the civil union laws which are the same as the current marriage laws.

Marriage is a cornerstone if not the cornerstone institution of our society and culture.

Its a cornerstone that fails about 1/3 of the time.

Chris

6 Aug 12 at 9:59 am
Why does it matter if one section of the community recognises another’s marriage?

and:

Its a cornerstone that fails about 1/3 of the time.

LOL

Chris – you’re just anti-marriage and I suspect – but can’t know – anti-gender-distiction.

Thankfully – and I can confidently say this without a ‘study’ – the overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens disagree with you and laughable ‘solutions’

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 10:05 am
SSM, on the other hand, has never ever existed in 6000 years of recorded human history.

Why would this invalidate gay marriage?

It has only been for a short part of human history we’ve not had slavery or serfdom.

They are – quite rightly – not gonna tolerate Chris-type insane non-solution solutions to a non-problem from their perspective.

Does it cost you a cent though? This is why I don’t get Dover for example who says “marriage for gays is okay as long as we don’t call it marriage in the legislation”.

.

6 Aug 12 at 10:22 am
The deviants aren’t mucking with ‘marriage – the reality’ here. They are mucking with ‘marriage – the promise’.

If you redefine marriage vows to expressly permit deviant behaviour, how is that not lessening the vows that people make?

…

In some ways, I’d trade this ‘marriage equality’ for a removal of all anti discrimination protection based upon sexual preference.

At that point the governmnet can call it what they like, and the community can respond how they like.

Driftforge

6 Aug 12 at 10:30 am
Why even bother, why not just repeal the marriage acts and discrimination acts?

.

6 Aug 12 at 10:33 am
Why would this invalidate gay marriage?

I said it did? If so, show me where.

It does two things:

1. It pokes a hole in the ‘discrimination’ argument.
Great thinkers over those 6000 years have spoken out against various ‘discriminations’ recognised today in Western culture negatively but never SSM

2. It should cause people to think why never before? Why the rush and why has this idea been around for only 20 years of 6000 plus years of recorded history?

Could we in 2012 really be that enlightened and intelligent and the rest of human history stupid?
Is there possibly an alternate agenda here championed by leftists?

Say the abolition of gender difference? One of the dreams of leftists.

It has only been for a short part of human history we’ve not had slavery or serfdom.

That’s showing woeful if not contemptible ignorance on your part dot.

There have been enlightened societies long before ‘us’.

history shows contra leftists that progress is anything but linear and inevitable.

We do have slavery now and serfdom wasn’t any different for a Russian peasant under the Tsars than under the Soviets. In fact, often better.

Moreover the nature and idea of slavery as understood now was completely different from the nature of slavery in the Old Testament.

Does it cost you a cent though? This is why I don’t get Dover for example who says “marriage for gays is okay as long as we don’t call it marriage in the legislation”.

Me personally? No

The biggest tragedy in western cultural democracies is the destruction of the family. It seen in accelerated form in American blacks. Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote about it 40 years ago and warned of dire consequences.

The concern is for the so societal health, and healthy pedagogy our greatest duty to our children after feeding and clothing.

You want more of that in our society 1 and 2 generations hence?

By the way dot since I’ve demolished your ‘concerns’, I trust you’ll defend marriage from here on in?

LOL

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 10:45 am
Thankfully – and I can confidently say this without a ‘study’ – the overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens disagree with you and laughable ‘solutions’

Over 60% of the population support gay marriage. So I think you’re right in one way – my “solution” won’t be accepted. We’ll simply eventually (perhaps fairly soon) end up with gay marriage being legal.

Chris

6 Aug 12 at 11:10 am
Over 60% of the population support gay marriage

That’s a figure arrived at in an environment where opposition to gay marriage verges on illegal.

Says something that after all this time as a protected species, support is still very mixed.

Driftforge

6 Aug 12 at 11:13 am
Over 60% of the population support gay marriage. So I think you’re right in one way – my “solution” won’t be accepted. We’ll simply eventually (perhaps fairly soon) end up with gay marriage being legal.

Perhaps.

Maybe even certainly if the juvemile non-debate debate we are having continues and trumpeted ignorance as ‘fairness’ continues to go unanswered Chris.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 11:14 am
Over 60% of the population support gay marriage. So I think you’re right in one way – my “solution” won’t be accepted. We’ll simply eventually (perhaps fairly soon) end up with gay marriage being legal.

Did they ask whether people are in support of Gay Civil Unions v Gay Marriage, or just Gay Marriage v No Marriage Rights (which in Australia is no longer the case)?

Token

6 Aug 12 at 11:28 am
Did they ask whether people are in support of Gay Civil Unions v Gay Marriage, or just Gay Marriage v No Marriage Rights (which in Australia is no longer the case)?

The polls I’ve seen just ask if people are in favour of gay marriage and don’t mention civil unions. But they’ve been held in 2012 with the context of most (but not all) states in Australia already having civil union legislation passed).

And in many states they explicitly do not allow for a state sanctioned civil union ceremony because it was seen as too close to marriage which does have a state sanctioned ceremony. How many people really know the difference and care about it? No idea.

Chris

6 Aug 12 at 12:56 pm
Chris:
Not sure to what extent that would be true for homosexual couples – some countries will decide not to recognize an Australian homosexual marriage anyway..

Yes, exactly. So their position will not alter at all.

If in essence it just comes down to nomenclature than those opposing the change are on pretty weak ground anyway as having two separate but identical systems is just wasteful bureaucracy.

But it isn’t a matter simply of nomenclature. The relationships are distinctly different; obviously so. One generally leads to children; the other, in and of itself, never can.

FWIW if marriage is such an important term to some people I think the government should just remove the term from all legislation

There is no need to do this. Marriage is a relationship that involves a public interest, same-sex relationships, just like friendships, do not.

recognition is non trivial if for example your partner falls sick but the medical personnel decline to recognize you as more than “a friend” when it comes to decisions about medical care.

This, so far as I understand it, is a matter of mere laziness, as it is in cases of inheritance. If people in same-sex relationships want their partner to exercise power of attorney or to receive this or that once one dies, than they can organise this merely by visiting a solicitor. What is being demanded here is the presumption of this or that right/ privilege as it is available to married couples.

Why does it matter if one section of the community recognises another’s marriage?

Shouldn’t this be asked squarely of those promoting gay ‘marriage’?

dot:
“SSM, on the other hand, has never ever existed in 6000 years of recorded human history.”

Why would this invalidate gay marriage?

It doesn’t invalidate gay ‘marriage’; it indicates that marriage is distinguishable from same-sex relationships.

Does it cost you a cent though? This is why I don’t get Dover for example who says “marriage for gays is okay as long as we don’t call it marriage in the legislation”.

But I’ve never argued that. I’ve argued that the married relationship and the same-sex relationship are distinctly different. And there obviously is a cost to this, just as there was a cost to no-fault divorce.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 1:06 pm
Chris, I’d like a poll that asks people to articulate what “marriage equility” means.

I myself would like to hear people’s opinion about whether they believe people of faith should be required by law to conduct ceremonies for gays if they object on moral grounds.

Token

6 Aug 12 at 1:07 pm
But it isn’t a matter simply of nomenclature. The relationships are distinctly different; obviously so. One generally leads to children; the other, in and of itself, never can.

Except that we don’t stop hetrosexual couples who clearly cannot have children from marrying. And homosexual couples do have children these days – whether it be adoption, donor sperm, IVF (none of which would be seen in a hetrosexual couple context as not a family).

This, so far as I understand it, is a matter of mere laziness, as it is in cases of inheritance. If people in same-sex relationships want their partner to exercise power of attorney or to receive this or that once one dies, than they can organise this merely by visiting a solicitor.

I was talking about this in the context of travelling overseas.

Chris, I’d like a poll that asks people to articulate what “marriage equility” means.

I myself would like to hear people’s opinion about whether they believe people of faith should be required by law to conduct ceremonies for gays if they object on moral grounds.

Yes, more precise polling would be useful.

I don’t think that religious organisations should be required by law to conduct ceremonies for people in situations they object to on moral grounds. No one forces the Catholic church to marry divorcees do they? Churches in general may decline to marry heterosexual couples if they refuse to go along fairly arbitrary requirements (going for counselling beforehand etc).

Going back to Skepticlawyer’s point they might be pushing things if they refused to marry an interracial couple or black couple though (there’d be at least a huge public backlash).

Chris

6 Aug 12 at 1:18 pm
What about the legal responsibilities and obligations bestowed by marriage that a lot of gays suddenly realize they don’t want Chris?

What you’re suggesting is not going to happen. You’re basically talking hypothetical. The government is not going to change to civil unions.

JC

6 Aug 12 at 1:22 pm
What about the legal responsibilities and obligations bestowed by marriage that a lot of gays suddenly realize they don’t want Chris?

If some don’t want it, then those people shouldn’t get married. But I thought people were claiming that civil unions gives the same legal rights and responsibilities? So what do you believe is the difference between the two?

What you’re suggesting is not going to happen. You’re basically talking hypothetical. The government is not going to change to civil unions.

Yes, its a hypothetical compromise that would allow religious groups to preserve their concept of marriage for themselves with no government interference or sanction for gay marriage. I agree its rather unlikely and the more likely scenario is legalisation of gay marriage.

Chris

6 Aug 12 at 1:32 pm
Except that we don’t stop hetrosexual couples who clearly cannot have children from marrying.

Whenever the ability to have children is raised it isn’t raised as a hurdle; it’s being used to distinguish marriage from same-sex relationships. If a couple are unable to conceive it indicates a problem, but a same-sex couple cannot conceive in and of themselves; not merely this same-sex couple, but ALL same-sex couples. Notice the difference?

And homosexual couples do have children these days – whether it be adoption, donor sperm, IVF (none of which would be seen in a hetrosexual couple context as not a family)

No, they don’t have children; that is exactly the point. They must receive children by means other than their own. Friends could also receive children via the methods you indicate above (or without them, for that matter), but this doesn’t mean that children are a natural outcome of friendship, and neither are they of same-sex coupling.

I was talking about this in the context of travelling overseas.

Yes? And the problems you raise would, I imagine, be solved by visiting a solicitor.

No one forces the Catholic church to marry divorcees do they?

That is a good point that cuts across SL’s general argument. This is clearly discriminatory, but the discrimination is justified as it regarding same-sex relationships. It clearly isn’t in regard to interracial marriages.

Going back to Skepticlawyer’s point they might be pushing things if they refused to marry an interracial couple or black couple though (there’d be at least a huge public backlash).

Yes, but given that the Catholic Church, for instance, has had several popes from the ‘dark continent’, and that it has never opposed interracial marriages, I don’t think this is really a problem. On such matters, it can be said that the Church lead the public by the nose.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 1:44 pm
If some don’t want it, then those people shouldn’t get married.

Current relationships would be treated the same as in defacto law. People would get dragged into responsibilities they never wanted.

JC

6 Aug 12 at 1:49 pm
It doesn’t make a difference how often leftist non-argument arguments on SSM are pummeled to dust on these threads they just carry on.

But many people other than leftists who haven’t heard the leftists’ inane non-argumment arguments decimated might think it’s all about ‘fairness’.

To quote all the leftists: ‘we need to have the debate’.

But unlike the leftists, a real debate

What the leftists actually mean is that they want to steamroll this issue before the general population might wake up and begin to understand the immediate negative implications and possible deleterious consequences for their childrens’ and grandchildrens’ society.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 2:06 pm
No, they don’t have children; that is exactly the point. They must receive children by means other than their own. Friends could also receive children via the methods you indicate above (or without them, for that matter), but this doesn’t mean that children are a natural outcome of friendship, and neither are they of same-sex coupling.

They are legally recognised (in some states) as their children though. With all the associated rights and responsibilities. If marriage is a framework that is important to bring up children then its important that it covers same sex relationships.

Yes? And the problems you raise would, I imagine, be solved by visiting a solicitor.

Not necessarily by a legal document made in Australia.

Current relationships would be treated the same as in defacto law. People would get dragged into responsibilities they never wanted.

Too late. The defacto laws got changed in 2008 to cover same sex relationships. People in gay relationships get sucked into the same responsibilities by defacto laws that people in heterosexual ones do.

Chris

6 Aug 12 at 2:15 pm
It’s all just another PC distortion using “equality” as a crowbar. I’ve had it with this country being ruined by PC distortions.

blogstrop

6 Aug 12 at 2:28 pm
If marriage is a framework that is important to bring up children then its important that it covers same sex relationships.

Why?

That a child is brought up by his/her own biological mother and father who are in a committed loving relationship is the ideal.

There are many individual instances of children brought up wonderfully by loving same sex couples, separated same sex couples and single parents and by foster parents single and divorced but the society must have as its highest ideal the original nuclear family.

It’s to society’s benefit to have that honoured quite apart from the natural desire of most couples committed to a mutual longterm relationship to marry.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 2:29 pm
Too late. The defacto laws got changed in 2008 to cover same sex relationships. People in gay relationships get sucked into the same responsibilities by defacto laws that people in heterosexual ones do.

Umm actually I’m not too late at all. These laws covered couples with children, so it’s really not the same thing at all.

You’re basically pushing for granting a minority the same rights as a majority. However in all this figuring there is no allowance made or even thought for the other minority, or perhaps they even aren’t a minority, within the gay community who don’t want these obligations pushed on them.

In other words for all this talk about respecting the rights of minorities there is no talk about pushing obligations on people that don’t want them.

This is basically grievance panhandling without much thought going into it.

JC

6 Aug 12 at 2:37 pm
They are legally recognised (in some states) as their children though. With all the associated rights and responsibilities.

And? The above simply passes over my point in silence.

If marriage is a framework that is important to bring up children then its important that it covers same sex relationships.

Why? The only children that are found in same-sex relationships, apart from the children that may have happened to be born in previous relationships (hmmm, funny that), are those that may occur as a result of adoption, IVF, or surrogacy. Children are simply not a feature of same-sex relationships; they are imposed upon it. That is why same-sex relationships should be as easy to dissolve as a business partnership, but married relationships shouldn’t.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 2:40 pm
They are legally recognised (in some states) as their children though. With all the associated rights and responsibilities

And here we enter the dark world of Parent 1 and Parent 2 on the Birth Certificates, institutionalised and uncontestable. Children without access to their full biological origins: another form of Slavery, suggested Da Perceptive Hairy Ape when I discussed with him my comment on this thread about the very fundamental right of freedom and the implied Rights of the Child.

To cap-off her feel-good and thoughtless Gay Marriage announcement, Lara Giddings in Tasmania is now thinking,paradoxically it seems to me, of apologising to all of those non-aboriginal children ‘stolen’ by welfare agencies in the past in Australia, stolen away from their real, biological, parents.

Should we start preparing to apologise to the next generation of ‘stolen’ children: those legally created to fulfil the ‘rights’ of gays to have children? Certainly some children are ‘created’ in this way: but why actually ‘authorise’ it through marriage? Do we want deliberately and, it could be argued in future, with malice, to produce more children suffering identity traumas than the number who are already are doing so in our fracturing families?

I am no cartoonist but if I was I would show two couples looking tenderly at each other, one a homosexual couple and the other a lesbian couple, each breathing to the other the loving words ‘marriage equality’. Looking up from beneath at each would be a child: to the two men the child is questioning “Where is my real mum?” and to the two women the words are “Where is my real dad?” – for it is this that Marriage Equality is current authorising; Childhood Inequality. We should know too that these children will be socialised and conditioned into ‘silent’ questionning, which in the less robust could emerge psychologically as various forms of neuroses or worse.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

6 Aug 12 at 3:15 pm
The whole argument might be pointless if we get Geddings style amendments that conservatives don’t care about repealing or are arm twisted into.

Let’s say it happens. What then?

I still think we’re better off repealing all marriage and discrimination laws.

.

6 Aug 12 at 3:15 pm
I still think we’re better off repealing all marriage and discrimination laws.

There are good arguments against that dot but really why entertain let alone discuss fantasy?

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 3:21 pm
It doesn’t invalidate gay ‘marriage’; it indicates that marriage is distinguishable from same-sex relationships.

That’s why it’s ‘gay marriage’.

1. It pokes a hole in the ‘discrimination’ argument.
Great thinkers over those 6000 years have spoken out against various ‘discriminations’ recognised today in Western culture negatively but never SSM

So what?

2. It should cause people to think why never before? Why the rush and why has this idea been around for only 20 years of 6000 plus years of recorded history?

What concern?

That’s showing woeful if not contemptible ignorance on your part dot.

There have been enlightened societies long before ‘us’.

….

We do have slavery now and serfdom wasn’t any different for a Russian peasant under the Tsars than under the Soviets. In fact, often better.

Moreover the nature and idea of slavery as understood now was completely different from the nature of slavery in the Old Testament.

WTF? You’re wrong. Shut up.

Except for this:

history shows contra leftists that progress is anything but linear and inevitable.

Which was exactly my point. Why are you relying on “6000 years without SSM” as a good idea to outlaw it?

The biggest tragedy in western cultural democracies is the destruction of the family.

Gay dudes aren’t going to have significantly more families than they have now.

You need to end race based welfare, incentives for single motherhood, the ban on private agreements on fault based divorce etc and the zealous prosecution of petty and victimless crimes that incarcerate young, stupid fathers.

.

6 Aug 12 at 3:25 pm
I came on a bit too strong there.

What enlightened societies/Governments really, fully, dropped serfdom and slavery before the 1800?

A bunch of small communes. That’s it.

The historicism argument seems to argue against our own liberties. That’s why I don’t like it.

.

6 Aug 12 at 3:33 pm
Lizzie, I think we can distinguish between adoption and IVF/ surrogacy. In the former, the idea is to find an existing child a home. As such, I’m happy to allow same-sex couples to adopt so long as all existing married partners open to adoption have been exhausted. With the latter, however, I’m opposed to same-sex couples creating children simply because they want one; of course, I’d also deny this to single-people as well. And, to be honest, the whole system of IVF to me seems terribly wasteful and immoral( the whole idea of large number of frozen embryos being destroyed) and thus, I deny this to married couples as well.

I still think we’re better off repealing all marriage … laws.

Dot, no. Impossible. There will always be laws relating to marriage, as there should be.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 3:35 pm
Found something that will make C.L’s head explode.

Read the “best answer”

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070607071114AApaIqD

.

6 Aug 12 at 3:35 pm
Dot, no. Impossible. There will always be laws relating to marriage, as there should be.

All statutes and legislation, smart arse.

.

6 Aug 12 at 3:36 pm
That’s why it’s ‘gay marriage’.

Nice try, but the ‘gay’ in that phrase is not acting as a qualifier, and marriage is reduced to merely denoting a relationship; whereas, properly speaking, marriage denotes more than a basic relationship. It denotes a type of relationship which is confounded by the inclusion of ‘gay’.

Which was exactly my point. Why are you relying on “6000 years without SSM” as a good idea to outlaw it?

No one is ‘outlawing’ gay ‘marriage’. A refusal to recognize gay ‘marriage’ as marriage is simply that; a refusal to recognize same-sex relationships as properly constituting marriage. Nothing prevents same-sex relationships from continuing lawfully in our society.

Gay dudes aren’t going to have significantly more families than they have now.

They cannot have families in and of themselves now; not a one of them.

The historicism argument seems to argue against our own liberties. That’s why I don’t like it.

Actually, if anything, you’re running the historicist argument here, dot. I’ve been arguing that marriage is essentially different from same-sex relationships. JamesK is arguing, more or less, that you are privileging the experience and judgement of this generation, over and above the experience and judgement of all cultures and past generations. And you’re arguing that marriage is whatever we decided it is.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 3:54 pm
Umm actually I’m not too late at all. These laws covered couples with children, so it’s really not the same thing at all.

No, it also covered couples without children. Though as you state there were some people complaining at the time as some people were left financially worse off. Eg some people were not eligible for as high a pension (or any pension at all) due to income of their partner. But no worse off than a heterosexual couple in the same circumstances.

And? The above simply passes over my point in silence.

No the point is often brought up that marriage is an institution that protects children. Well there’s children in same sex relationships that are just as deserving of the same protections.

And here we enter the dark world of Parent 1 and Parent 2 on the Birth Certificates, institutionalised and uncontestable. Children without access to their full biological origins:

I agree knowledge of genetic history is important but that is an existing problem with heterosexual marriage. Isn’t something like 1-5% of fathers on birth certificates not actually the genetic father? Its the 21st Century – I’m sure we can add some additional fields to the birth certificate. Entries for genetic parents entered only when established only by a DNA test. As well as legal guardians at the time of birth.

Chris

6 Aug 12 at 4:35 pm
No the point is often brought up that marriage is an institution that protects children. Well there’s children in same sex relationships that are just as deserving of the same protections

You are responding to an argument that Dover didn’t make, Chris

A strawman rebuttal if you will.

I agree knowledge of genetic history is important

You are responding to an argument that Lizzie didn’t make, Chris

A strawman rebuttal if you will.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 4:47 pm
Sophistry seems to be the insubstantial of substance both Chris’ and more disappointingly dot’s responses.

Exactly as I said at my 2:06pm comment.

You’d need a hole in your head to want to debate them.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 4:50 pm
Nice try, but the ‘gay’ in that phrase is not acting as a qualifier, and marriage is reduced to merely denoting a relationship; whereas, properly speaking, marriage denotes more than a basic relationship.

Imperious and presumptuous.

No one is ‘outlawing’ gay ‘marriage’.

US States have, Howard tried to.

They cannot have families in and of themselves now; not a one of them.

Then why do you guys bring up “breakdown of the family”?

I’m running a historicist argument because I’m saying tradition doesn’t necessarily dictate morality or reality?

Um, okay…

.

6 Aug 12 at 5:25 pm
No, it also covered couples without children. Though as you state there were some people complaining at the time as some people were left financially worse off. Eg some people were not eligible for as high a pension (or any pension at all) due to income of their partner. But no worse off than a heterosexual couple in the same circumstances.

Chris, gay couples without kids are not recognized under family law. I don’t know what you’ve been reading.

JC

6 Aug 12 at 5:28 pm
Thanks for that dot

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 5:28 pm
But no worse off than a heterosexual couple in the same circumstances.

Oh great. And it’s not a hetro couple being worse off. It’s the man who always gets a rooting from the family court.

So because these people are encumbered with new obligations you’re willing to overlook this small detail and bullshit with the excuse that hetro-couples are also encumbered with it.

What sort of nonsense is this Chris? You’re hyper vigilant in wanting to extend what you consider rights to a minority but don’t give a shit about people within that minority having a new set of obligations being set on them? That’s some serious amount of mental gymnastics you’re performing there bro.

JC

6 Aug 12 at 5:34 pm
Chris, gay couples without kids are not recognized under family law. I don’t know what you’ve been reading.

See the following link. No children are required.

http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/defacto.htm

A de facto relationship is when two people are not married, but live together or have lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis.

The same laws apply to same-sex couples as heterosexual (different-sex) couples.

….

From 1 March 2009, there are new laws that affect de facto couples. These laws give them the same access to the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court for property and maintenance disputes as married couples. See the ‘Dividing your property’ (link below).

Chris

6 Aug 12 at 5:41 pm
Oh shit, I didn’t realize this happened. So they basically fucked over gay people too.

JC

6 Aug 12 at 5:45 pm
No the point is often brought up that marriage is an institution that protects children.

Yes, quite; it also produces children. That is why we believe that it is the appropriate institution for their protection.

Well there’s children in same sex relationships that are just as deserving of the same protections.

Yes, and circumstances may require two aunties to protect their sister’s or brother’s child/ren as well but this doesn’t require us to believe that they are married.

dot:
Imperious and presumptuous.

Not at all. There is nothing ‘imperious’ or ‘presumptuous’ in arguing that marriage is a type of relationship, and that gay ‘marriage’, while being a relationship, is not identical to marriage.

US States have, Howard tried to.

No. What some US states have down is outlaw the recognition of gay ‘marriage’; they haven’t outlawed gay men or women living in marriage-like relationships or organizing ceremonies where they publicly celebrate their relationship and receive the blessings of family and friends.

I’m running a historicist argument because I’m saying tradition doesn’t necessarily dictate morality or reality?Um, okay…

Well, you’re privileging what you argue is our contemporary understanding of marriage as opposed to the understanding of every culture and and every age simply because it is our contemporary understanding.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 5:54 pm
Thanks for that dot

You’re welcome.

Not at all. There is nothing ‘imperious’ or ‘presumptuous’ in arguing that marriage is a type of relationship, and that gay ‘marriage’, while being a relationship, is not identical to marriage.

LOL…that’s why it involves two dudes instead of a man and a woman.

No. What some US states have down is outlaw the recognition of gay ‘marriage’; they haven’t outlawed gay men or women living in marriage-like relationships or organizing ceremonies where they publicly celebrate their relationship and receive the blessings of family and friends

Now gay marriage can be de facto gay relationships.

Make up your mind.

Well, you’re privileging what you argue is our contemporary understanding of marriage as opposed to the understanding of every culture and and every age simply because it is our contemporary understanding.

So, you’re a moral relativist then dover? Um…

If gays are fucked over as badly as the rest of us, then their request for recognition isn’t unreasonable.

Like I said. Repeal all marriage and discrimination statutes. Also, at the end of the day, gay people get families and raise children and have all but in name gay marriage and it’s just a friggin’ chicken burger.

Boycotting it will not be a Rosa Parks moment.

.

6 Aug 12 at 6:37 pm
Blah de blah de fucking blah de blah.

Abu Chowdah

6 Aug 12 at 6:39 pm
That’s what this debate, and burger boycott will amount to.

The Feds have already cut in and now Giddings.

.

6 Aug 12 at 6:42 pm
LOL…that’s why it involves two dudes instead of a man and a woman.

I honestly don’t understand this response.

Now gay marriage can be de facto gay relationships.

Make up your mind.

No, it cannot be de facto; either it is or it isn’t a relationship.

So, you’re a moral relativist then dover? Um…

No, it’s obvious I’m the realist (philosophical sense) here because I’m arguing that marriage has characteristics that are essential to it, while you’re the relativist because you’re arguing that marriage is what ever we say it is.

Repeal all marriage and discrimination statutes. Also, at the end of the day, gay people get families and raise children and have all but in name gay marriage and it’s just a friggin’ chicken burger.

Just pathetic; the veritable “whatever”.

Anyway, here is an interesting article on gay parenting by someone who was gay parented.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 7:05 pm
Like I said. Repeal all marriage and discrimination statutes

Like I said, thanks for that as well dot

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 7:09 pm
Thank you, you are welcome.

.

6 Aug 12 at 7:25 pm
I honestly don’t understand this response.

Bullshit.

No, it cannot be de facto; either it is or it isn’t a relationship.

You are already saying gay marriage already exists (no one has outlawed gay marriage or tried). You just can’t bring yourself to call it marriage.

I’m arguing that marriage has characteristics that are essential to it

Sure. You can call marriage whatever the hell you like. You can even say you are an objectivist – the fact is you have tacitly accepted gay marriage exists but think the world will end if you call it what it is.

Just pathetic; the veritable “whatever”.

No I’m right.

No one cares what some cuddly puppets kie or dislike, or if the nebulous tea party has meetings at Chick fil A or not. Giddings and the 2009 legislation might make this whole debate worthless.

I’m right.

.

6 Aug 12 at 7:30 pm
Bullshit.

No, I honestly don’t.

You are already saying gay marriage already exists (no one has outlawed gay marriage or tried). You just can’t bring yourself to call it marriage.

No, I’m saying that whatever you believe marriage is is already available to same-sex couples. As is obvious from what I’ve argued, ad nauseam for the last year, whatever this is is not marriage.

Sure. You can call marriage whatever the hell you like. You can even say you are an objectivist – the fact is you have tacitly accepted gay marriage exists but think the world will end if you call it what it is.

Firstly, no, neither I, nor you, nor anyone, can call marriage whatever we like, that is precisely the point. Secondly, no, I have done no such thing; see above.

No one cares what some cuddly puppets kie or dislike, or if the nebulous tea party has meetings at Chick fil A or not. Giddings and the 2009 legislation might make this whole debate worthless.

Well, the same could be said about Finkelstein’s recommendations, plain packaging, the carbon tax, and so on; in fact sfb says this all the time, but I don’t see you shutting up about them, sunshine.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 8:00 pm
Firstly, no, neither I, nor you, nor anyone, can call marriage whatever we like, that is precisely the point.

Yes we bloodywell can.

What if we don’t?

What is going to happen? Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

Well, the same could be said about Finkelstein’s recommendations, plain packaging, the carbon tax, and so on; in fact sfb says this all the time, but I don’t see you shutting up about them, sunshine.

The difference is I am right about this. Half of that has happened, Giddings basically has a double majority and Gillard and Wong will not strike her law down.

A carbon tax is also harmful to liberty and prosperity. Gays on the other hand have little to gain, nor do conservatives have much to lose.

Like I said all the way near the top – this is possibly the most pointless debate and most people don’t care if a burger chain gets boycotted or not.

.

6 Aug 12 at 8:09 pm
Dot’s ‘arguments’ have been reduced to those of a fractious, frustrated and obstinate young child.

Truly pathetic stuff.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 8:12 pm
No, they are fantastic arguments to which you have no reply for.

I am like the affable Milt Friedman, and you are a shrivelled up, angry, old, lesbian professor of socialist politics, deranged and yelling.

Just deal with it.

.

6 Aug 12 at 8:16 pm
Sinclair, you need one of those word cloud thingies to show how much this site obsesses about gays.

Winston Smith

6 Aug 12 at 8:20 pm
Yes we bloodywell can.

Dot outs himself as a fraternal twin of Rorty and Foucault.

What is going to happen? Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

No; confusion.

The difference is I am right about this.

No, quite the opposite.

Like I said all the way near the top – this is possibly the most pointless debate

And yet, invariable, here you are.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 8:25 pm
Not that I agree with the comment by Dot @8.16pm, just impressed with his retort.

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 8:27 pm
What does a “shrivelled up, angry, old, lesbian professor of socialist politics” sound like:

What is going to happen? Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

Quite so.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 8:29 pm
Oh no, people will be confused…seriously?!

.

6 Aug 12 at 8:30 pm
What is going to happen? Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

Dr Peter Venkman, actually.

.

6 Aug 12 at 8:32 pm
Ooh, good hoisting by Dot’s own petard, Dover.

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 8:32 pm
Oh no, people will be confused…seriously?!

It has already; it’s reflected in your argument, Prof. Laski.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 8:34 pm
You are seriously arguing against gay marriage on public policy grounds that it will “confuse people”.

Who will get confused, and why does it matter?

How many people out there do you think are idiots?

.

6 Aug 12 at 8:36 pm
Ooh, good hoisting by Dot’s own petard, Dover.

When did that happen?

I feel sorry for Dover…having to ensure that the little people don’t get “confused” by those pernicious gays.

.

6 Aug 12 at 8:38 pm
When did that happen?

When he skilfully and artfully used your own words against you like a master swordsman. (Okay maybe I got the petard ref wrong).

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 8:40 pm
You are seriously arguing against gay marriage on public policy grounds that it will “confuse people”.

No, I’ve made it plainly and painfully obvious why I’m opposed to recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages.

Who will get confused, and why does it matter?

Clear thinking matters, dot.

How many people out there do you think are idiots?

We are presently in the second term of the most disastrous government in our nation’s history. You know the adage: fool me once, shame on you, ….

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 8:48 pm
Christians hate gay marriage because they hate gays, end of story.

No – Christians and non Christians understand that once you start redefining an institution to fit your your preferences, eventually it will be redefined out of all meaningful existence.

Viva

6 Aug 12 at 8:50 pm
When he skilfully and artfully used your own words against you like a master swordsman. (Okay maybe I got the petard ref wrong).

Like how he thinks a good public policy reason is “confusion” based on his own denied historicism argument that disagreeing with him about the definition of marriage must not occur?

I am not confused at all.

No one is confused.

Dover is asserting that disagreeing with him over the definition of a single word is “confusion” and a public policy matter.

It is rank arrogance.

.

6 Aug 12 at 8:50 pm
Clear thinking matters, dot.

That’s not gonna help dot, dover.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 8:52 pm
I’m not getting in the middle of this argument, Dot.

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 8:53 pm
I feel sorry for Dover…having to ensure that the little people don’t get “confused” by those pernicious gays.

I’m ever so helpful.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 8:53 pm
Tortured and denied historicism argument, motherhood statements, scaremongering and arguments about definitions that are all semantics and the opposite of reality.

You conservatives have already lost.

Gay marriage is a reality in the making. Giddings is left of the ALP centre and effectively has a left wing, double majority Govt (viz, “independents”) and will push the barrow if any of us like it or not, or if it benefits gays or not.

You totally ignored Giddings passing an act to enable gay marriage. Wong and Gillard will not strike it down. Even a PM Abbot is unlikely to repeal it in a first term if he cares that much.

If gays get to marry, the rest of us have “meaningless” marriages?

You guys are a touch insecure.

“You bastard Jim, you cheated on me”

‘I didn’t know what I was doing Ethel, now the gays are getting married I felt like our marriage was meaningless and I’m confused’

“That’s okay, i thought you were a Beagle at first, maybe we ought to get divorced”

Hysterical? Then be more bloody specific than motherhood statements and other assorted paternalistic crap.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:00 pm
All the same arguments regarding gay marriage and children also apply to marriages involving post-menopausal women.

If marriage is primarily for the production of children, are you guys also saying that a 60-year old widower has no business getting remarried? If not, why not?

Yobbo

6 Aug 12 at 9:00 pm
That’s not gonna help dot, dover.

Sure James, tell people that “clear thinking matters” and “you’re too dumb to have morals or direction in life” if the gays get married.

I’m ever so helpful.

I’m worried you actually think that.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:02 pm
here is an interesting article on gay parenting by someone who was gay parented.

A very sad tale, acutely analysed, and very sensitive and fair to all involved, Dover. Many more saddened and confused offspring like this one to come, I think.

But Lara Giddings knows better …

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

6 Aug 12 at 9:02 pm
All the same arguments regarding gay marriage and children also apply to marriages involving post-menopausal women.

If marriage is primarily for the production of children, are you guys also saying that a 60-year old widower has no business getting remarried? If not, why not?

Exactly. Come clean.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:02 pm
If marriage is primarily for the production of children,

A marriage or the institution of marriage Yobbo, you child?

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 9:03 pm
Exactly. Come clean.

Dot.

I mean this: you are pathetic.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 9:04 pm
here is an interesting article on gay parenting by someone who was gay parented.

I was raised by two devout Catholics and I think I’m fucking perfect.

At least one of these above statements is “anecdotal pigshit”.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:04 pm
Exactly. Come clean.

Dot.

I mean this: you are pathetic.

No no no.

Answer the question, you mental midget.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:06 pm
Like how he thinks a good public policy reason is “confusion” based on his own denied historicism argument that disagreeing with him about the definition of marriage must not occur?

Dot, why are you making things up?

I am not confused at all.

And yet you cannot tell the difference between marriage and same-sex relationships.

Dover is asserting that disagreeing with him over the definition of a single word is “confusion” and a public policy matter.

Firstly, no, you’re not disagreeing with me alone, but with all cultures and all ages. Secondly, why wouldn’t it be a public policy matter? There is common law and statute law relating to marriage; why wouldn’t confusion about the meaning of marriage not be a matter for public policy?

It is rank arrogance.

No, this is rank arrogance:

No I’m right….I’m right….Yes we bloodywell can. What if we don’t? ….The difference is I am right about this.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 9:07 pm
Answer the question, you mental midget.

You mean you missed my response to Yobbo who you manage to make look mature in comparison?

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 9:10 pm
Dot, why are you making things up?

I’m not.

And yet you cannot tell the difference between marriage and same-sex relationships.

Hahaha!

I stated the obvious difference, talked down to you like a child and your response was “I don’t understand this”

Firstly, no, you’re not disagreeing with me alone, but with all cultures and all ages.

Disagreeing with culture makes you wrong?

why wouldn’t confusion about the meaning of marriage not be a matter for public policy

No one is confused, that’s why it’s bullshit.

No, this is rank arrogance:

No I’m right….I’m right….Yes we bloodywell can. What if we don’t? ….The difference is I am right about this.

No it is not, you are forbidding anyone else from redefining anything (but particularly gay marriage) because you’ve convinced yourself gay marriage is wrong.

You are more like Canute than Keating, actually.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:10 pm
You mean you missed my response to Yobbo who you manage to make look mature in comparison?

You answered a question with a question about two outcomes, you could have answered both as you have views on both.

Just come clean.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:11 pm
Christians hate the sin and not the sinner, who is regarded as redeemable. The left lack this subtle but powerful distinction. And quite a few here lack the insight to argue for stable society, with arguments put forward by dot and yobbo which are in effect a complete abdication of responsibility – single persons’ saying fuck you, I’m ok.
Not very edifying.

blogstrop

6 Aug 12 at 9:12 pm
“anecdotal pigshit”.

Well, it’s true there is a lot of it about, Dot. You win on points here I think, but Dover has it all over you regarding ‘rank arrogance’.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

6 Aug 12 at 9:13 pm
Dot is now nailed, cornered thrashing around in ever more pathetic attempts at seeming smart.

When all he demonstrates is that he’s juvenile goose.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 9:14 pm
Yet both Dover and Dot do jibes, retorts and insults well. No swearing involved either. They’re both very adept on that count, and rather humourous tonight too.

Very entertaining. I give them each 7.5/10

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 9:16 pm
The problem with what you are saying bloggie is it is a fucking charade.

Gays already raise kids.

The anti male bias in family law and poorly designed welfare system have broken families, gays are fantastically peripheral.

They are already effectively married but Dover can’t say it and thinks calling it that will lead to the downfall of society.

Giddings will probably pass such a law to enable gay marriage in Tas, which is a very stable, too stable for it’s own good place.

If society cannot be stable with anything but laws against coercion and dishonesty it doesn’t deserve to survive.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:17 pm
Well, it’s true there is a lot of it about, Dot. You win on points here I think, but Dover has it all over you regarding ‘rank arrogance’

Why? Because I don’t think other people are ‘confused’ by the legalisation of gay marriage, and that dover cannot magically stop other people from redefining words (as he sees it).

You confuse confidence with arrogance. or you are going to have to explain why I’m arrogant to me or I won’t understand why you think that.

Dot is now nailed, cornered thrashing around in ever more pathetic attempts at seeming smart.

When all he demonstrates is that he’s juvenile goose.

What I’ve demonstrated is you are as slippery as the survey dodging lefties on this site.

I asked them about fifty questions, I asked you two.

You’ve got to give back to this site. The lefties get it…

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:21 pm
dot:
arguments about definitions that are all semantics and the opposite of reality….Gay marriage is a reality in the making.

So, gay ‘marriage’ is not in reality marriage, it’s a reality-in-the-making.

If gays get to marry, the rest of us have “meaningless” marriages?

You guys are a touch insecure.

No, but you’re making things up again.

Yobbo:
All the same arguments regarding gay marriage and children also apply to marriages involving post-menopausal women.

No, they don’t.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 9:22 pm
Giddings will probably pass such a law to enable gay marriage in Tas

Frozen Gay Tassie weddings? A terrific kick to the faltering tourism industy.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

6 Aug 12 at 9:23 pm
Yet both Dover and Dot do jibes, retorts and insults well. No swearing involved either. They’re both very adept on that count, and rather humourous tonight too.

Very entertaining. I give them each 7.5/10

Dot’s a dab hand at swearing Gab but no one swears at d_b.

I think the record shows that dover has handed dot his arse on a platter.

It’s a no contest.

Your scoring is possible on entertainment but then the debate in and of itself is meaningless which is rather an insult to both dot and dover

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 9:23 pm
Rightio.

Say I’m wrong. I’m prone to err.

Except one thing. There is a good chance Giddings will get gay marriage in Tasmania. I trust the Tas MLCs are independent as the “independent thinkers” on Crikey who are lefties who convince themselves they are the centre.

What will happen, opponents of gay marriage (even obstinate ones who tacitly accept it under another name)?

Tell me what would be materially different to now in terms of outcomes.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:24 pm
Dot’s a dab hand at swearing Gab but no one swears at d_b.

I think the record shows that dover has handed dot his arse on a platter.

It’s a no contest.

Your scoring is possible on entertainment but then the debate in and of itself is meaningless which is rather an insult to both dot and dover

Answer some questions James.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:25 pm
I stated the obvious difference,

No, you didn’t. The obvious difference is what is entailed by one being a relationship between the sexes and the other being a relationship within the sexes. There is an old Chinese proverb:

When the finger points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 9:27 pm
You take the fun out of it James. No I wasn’t scoring Dot and Dover on content of their arguments. It would be an insult to both of them if I did.

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 9:27 pm
I’d have an easier time accepting DB’s ideas if he didn’t have tacit approval of you-know-what-cannot-be-named-but-is-otherwise-valid-unless-it-is-called-that.

If you’re not insecure, please be more specific about “confusion” than “in tough times, we need clear thinking”

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:28 pm
It would be an insult to both of them if I did.

I think your topsy turvy on what constitutes lack of repect there Gab.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 9:32 pm
No, you didn’t. The obvious difference is what is entailed by one being a relationship between the sexes and the other being a relationship within the sexes.

It (the difference) is the same bloody thing, no matter how you write the mother loving sentence.

I doesn’t matter if you’re looking at the bloody moon or the damned finger, you’re still pointing at it!

Jay-sus! This is taking splitting hairs to a Sorcerer’s Apprentice style of deftness and expertise.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:34 pm
I think your topsy turvy on what constitutes lack of repect there Gab.

Answer some questions you squib.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:35 pm
No, James. I respect both of them.

Now answer dot’s questions.

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 9:36 pm
I’m not sure you understood the allusion, dot.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 9:38 pm
Well. I have been zinged.

Have a cup of smug and remember there is no accounting for taste, in anything.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:42 pm
You confuse confidence with arrogance.

No I don’t. Arrogance is when you refuse to concede any point or have no useful argument to refute it with. You elided the debate about relevant confusions away from children’s experiential confusions of their gay parenting to a claim that in general no-one was confused about the meaning that was attributed to ‘gay’ marriage and that Dover was merely playing semantics, whereas you were dealing with ‘realities’. Marriage is still a term with tremendous semantic depth and Dover has demonstrated this well. Your realities-in-the-making are inchoate as yet, not played out.

Your quick retort about anecdotal pigshit did hit home though, even though a careful reading of the referred article shows that the deliberately ‘de-normalised’ world of the left is at the core of much human misery.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

6 Aug 12 at 9:46 pm
I asked you two.

You have?

Where and when exactly?

No, James. I respect both of them.

Now answer dot’s questions.

Okay Gab, I disagree with you but where are dot’s supposed unanswered ‘two questions’ that you demand I answer?

Q: Why would this invalidate gay marriage? .6 Aug 12 at 10:22 am

A: JamesK 6 Aug 12 at 10:45 am

I said it did? If so, show me where.

It does two things:

1. It pokes a hole in the ‘discrimination’ argument.
Great thinkers over those 6000 years have spoken out against various ‘discriminations’ recognised today in Western culture negatively but never SSM

2. It should cause people to think why never before? Why the rush and why has this idea been around for only 20 years of 6000 plus years of recorded history?

Could we in 2012 really be that enlightened and intelligent and the rest of human history stupid?
Is there possibly an alternate agenda here championed by leftists?

Say the abolition of gender difference? One of the dreams of leftists.

Response: So What?

. 6 Aug 12 at 3:25 pm
————-

Proposition: I still think we’re better off repealing all marriage and discrimination laws.

. 6 Aug 12 at 3:15 pm

Response:

There are good arguments against that dot but really why entertain let alone discuss fantasy?

JamesK 6 Aug 12 at 3:21 pm

No response from dot thus far

———

Dot as well as been infantile and having your nose rubbed in it, you lie

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 9:48 pm
Respond any time you like Gab

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 9:51 pm
Giddings will probably pass such a law to enable gay marriage in Tas, which is a very stable, too stable for it’s own good place

Oh let’s add some numbers to this.

If Gary marriage is so perilous to society then those societies that have allowed it should have all hell breaking loose by now. Sydney is a Gay capital, last I heard it was doing alright. So instead of this eternal bickering let us settle argument by looking around and seeing if Gay Marriage actually is damaging to society instead of persistently invoking the fucking precautionary principle.

Dead Soul

6 Aug 12 at 9:52 pm
to a claim that in general no-one was confused about the meaning that was attributed to ‘gay’ marriage

Do you really believe people are confused about what gay marriage is, might or would be?

Most people who finished high school (IMO) were fairly well clued up about the republic referendum. Maybe I have a lack of empathy or imagination but I just cannot fathom nor relate to being confused over formalising what the family Court already enforces.

Your realities-in-the-making are inchoate as yet, not played out.

Do you have any prognostication about Tasmania other than the same disbelief I have as you that you can have a successful economy built on whales and gay marriage based tourism?

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:52 pm
Society will not implode if gay couples are issued with marriage certificates.

dd

6 Aug 12 at 9:54 pm
Respond to what, James? Look you’re getting all het up at me for what I don’t know. I was just having a bit of fun complimenting both Dover and Dot on their entertaining retorts. I even said I wasn’t commenting on thethe substance of their respective arguments. And now here we are, you getting your back up. Look, asking you to respond to dot’s questions was not serious, just me being a bit cheeky. Sorry if that upset you.

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 9:55 pm
If Gary marriage is so perilous to society then those societies that have allowed it should have all hell breaking loose by now

Why do you say that?

Has even a single generation passed yet, let alone 2 or more?

Tell us what you understood conservatives were ‘phobic’ about this time in your fertile imaginings?

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 9:56 pm
So instead of this eternal bickering let us settle argument by looking around and seeing if Gay Marriage actually is damaging to society instead of persistently invoking the fucking precautionary principle.

I knew it.

Fucking lefties!

James – you are in your own reality, where human history littered with victims, repression, corpses and human sacrifice is a guide for enlightenment. Answer Yobbo’s question, framed either way and hurry up.

.

6 Aug 12 at 9:56 pm
Dot, answer James’ questions.

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 9:57 pm
Respond to what, James? Look you’re getting all het up at me for what I don’t know.

I’m not “het up” with you Gab.

You instructed me to answer dots two questions.

I want to.

I really do.

Point them out to me

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 9:58 pm
Seriously guys this is a non-issue. If gay marriage is introduced it will have zero impact on anyone except a small number of gay couples.

dd

6 Aug 12 at 9:59 pm
Twice!

Who’s “het up”, Gab?

Point out dots two questions

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 9:59 pm
If I ask three times will you respond Gab?

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 10:02 pm
That’s what I reckon DD.

.

6 Aug 12 at 10:02 pm
Look, asking you to respond to dot’s questions was not serious, just me being a bit cheeky. Sorry if that upset you.

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 10:03 pm
Hey.

What about beagles?

C.L.

6 Aug 12 at 10:04 pm
I “instruct” you James to give me $1million. I know you really want to.

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 10:05 pm
Answer Yobbo’s question, framed either way and hurry up.

So not your 2 questions, dot?

Where are they by the way?

I have already answered Yobbo’s question.

Brilliantly too, I might add.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 10:05 pm
It’s in da post Gab

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 10:06 pm
I have already answered Yobbo’s question.

Brilliantly too, I might add.

Then why are you nagging me now? And please carry out last “instruction:.

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 10:06 pm
This blog is almost as repetitive on gay marriage as Q&A. (Yes, they are talking about it again as I type.)

steve from brisbane

6 Aug 12 at 10:07 pm
If Gary marriage is so perilous to society then those societies that have allowed it should have all hell breaking loose by now. Sydney is a Gay capital, last I heard it was doing alright.

Society will not implode if gay couples are issued with marriage certificates.

The same thing was said about no-fault divorce, etc. That’s worked out well, hasn’t it.

Answer Yobbo’s question, framed either way and hurry up.

I already have; see the link.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 10:09 pm
Well

It’s wiki and william j connelly might change it on me before you see the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Australia

The largest and most thorough survey in Australia to date was conducted by telephone interview with 19,307 respondents between the ages of 16 and 59 in 2001/2002. The study found that 97.4% of men identified as heterosexual, 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual. For women 97.7% identified as heterosexual, 0.8% as lesbian and 1.4% as bisexual. Nevertheless, 18.6% of men and 15.1% of women reported either feelings of attraction to the same gender or some sexual experience with the same gender. Half the men and two thirds of the women who had same-sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual rather than homosexual.

2.35% of the country is gay. A minority of them want to get married. (A minority of them will get married, a minority of them will stay married). A minority of them want to raise children. A minority of them want surrogacy.

PS

All of that already happens.

.

6 Aug 12 at 10:09 pm
This blog is almost as repetitive on gay marriage as Q&A. (Yes, they are talking about it again as I type.)

You know, I wondered when it would be raised this evening, not if, and thought to myself, around about the 30-35min mark and guess what…

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 10:11 pm
For a minority (2001 figures) they make me feel very oppressed.

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 10:12 pm
The same thing was said about no-fault divorce, etc. That’s worked out well, hasn’t it.

Dude. Are you fucking kidding me? Less than 1% of the populace will go all the way with gay marriage.

Most of them are presently in de facto relationships recognised under Federal law.

I’m sure you can do better than this.

.

6 Aug 12 at 10:13 pm
Do you really believe people are confused about what gay marriage is, might or would be?

Absolutely, I do believe this. Most people haven’t even begun to think it through properly yet. They are infused with an ideology of ‘romance’ and ‘fairness’ to the glowing couple, and don’t think of the outcomes for children.

Fuck the Family Court. It is a completely taken-over leftist instrument running to a left agenda.

Do you have any prognostication about Tasmania

Yes, ‘gay marriage’ is just another brick in its leftist wall. They need their own Campbell Newman, fast, to normalise their thinking a bit on a range of issues.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

6 Aug 12 at 10:14 pm
So obviously there will be no implications of any significance for the institution of marriage and society in general?

Make a few happy cos it makes no difference whatsoever etc etc etc

Is that seriously supposed to be your considered position dot and dd?

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 10:15 pm
The same thing was said about no-fault divorce, etc. That’s worked out well, hasn’t it.

Yeah but you need to at least make a case for what the specific danger is, to anyone, of gay marriage.
Now, sure, you have people like C.L., who scoff and say it’s not really marriage. Which is his opinion and that’s fine, but whether it’s “really marriage” or not doesn’t stop the government from issuing the certificate.

So what are the risks? The two most coherent risks that i have seen articulated at the Cat or elsewhere are:

a) this is the first stage of a two-stage attack on the church; it will be used as leverage with the anti-discrimination laws if they refuse to marry same-sex couples.

b) this will open the door to other marriage forms such as polygamy.

Both of these are possible, but pretty low order risks. The first is solveable with legislation and might not be a risk anyway. The second is unlikely any time soon.

dd

6 Aug 12 at 10:17 pm
A minority of them want to raise children. A minority of them want surrogacy.

It isn’t about what they want? Children are not poodles.

A minority of them want to get married….All of that already happens.

So why the fuss about ‘marriage equality’?

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 10:17 pm
For a minority (2001 figures) they make me feel very oppressed.

How?

The most oppressive group in Australia are people of a “Top Deck” racial profile I can’t say “Wh… Ab……es” because I like Sinclair’s blog.

The Cafe Latte “race” is more oppressive than a Discrimination Commissioner on a speed ball.

.

6 Aug 12 at 10:17 pm
So obviously there will be no implications of any significance for the institution of marriage and society in general?

articulate the risks. What are the risks? If there are none, there is no reason to oppose it.

dd

6 Aug 12 at 10:17 pm
A minority of them want to raise children. A minority of them want surrogacy.

Already happens.

It isn’t about what they want? Children are not poodles.

Please tell me what God given right you have to judge this, or if you judge all heterosexual coupled parents with the same zeal, regardless of care, wherewithal or competency.

.

6 Aug 12 at 10:19 pm
So what are the risks?

What are the risks of allowing men to marry beagles?

Seriously.

Go!

C.L.

6 Aug 12 at 10:22 pm
Why can’t you give a serious answer, C.L.?

.

6 Aug 12 at 10:24 pm
No one wants to marry Alsatians. Always those damn Beagles.

Gab

6 Aug 12 at 10:25 pm
Yeah but you need to at least make a case for what the specific danger is, to anyone, of gay marriage.

Why?

You’d need a fortune teller dd.

Some effects are obvious: a happily married heterosexual couple are no longer deemed naturally likely to be a better option for children than a SS couple.

Gender is unimportant is another consequence.

Men and women each have no unique abilities for parenting purposes is another consequence.

A birth certificate will no longer have ‘Father’s Name’ and ‘Mother’s Name’.

There can be no Mother’s school day or Father’s
school day etc etc etc

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 10:25 pm
Children are not poodles.

That is right. Children are created by their parents. Biologically. The only judgement I make is that this should not change through a piece of social engineering around ‘unimportant’ (!) changes to the Marriage Act.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

6 Aug 12 at 10:27 pm
So what are the risks?

That it merely entrenches the problems already introduced, in part, by no-fault divorce. Marriage is simply not taken seriously enough. The evisceration of marriage has itself led to increased cohabitation. People increasingly bare children outside of the institution of marriage, so you will see more people having children in a variety of situations, including single parenthood. People will simply view marriage through the prism of their own particular interests. If gay ‘marriage’ is thought of as marriage there is intellectually no reason at all why polygamy would be disallowed; in fact, the arguments against polygamy are not as strong than they are against gay ‘marriage’ though they are still considerable. Anyway, my opposition to gay ‘marriage’ is not motivated by a concern with polygamy although I’m opposed to the latter nonetheless.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 10:33 pm
This has been niggling me for a while, Dot ….

Most people who finished high school (IMO) were fairly well clued up about

Never did finish high school, Dot.

Caught up later though, maybe?

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

6 Aug 12 at 10:39 pm
a happily married heterosexual couple are no longer deemed naturally likely to be a better option for children than a SS couple.

already the case.

Gender is unimportant is another consequence.

Gender is never unimportant.

Men and women each have no unique abilities for parenting purposes is another consequence

A family law question, not a gay marriage question.

A birth certificate will no longer have ‘Father’s Name’ and ‘Mother’s Name’.

I don’t care.

There can be no Mother’s school day or Father’s
school day etc etc etc

How would a post-gay-marriage world be different in this respect? We already have children with single parents, ie who have either no father or no mother. No change from the status quo. Therefore, nothing at stake.

dd

6 Aug 12 at 10:39 pm
Why can’t you give a serious answer, C.L.?

What was the question, sorry?

The objective of gay ‘marriage’ is – and always has been – to demoralise Christians and foist a phony equivalency, sodomy = heterosexual sex, upon society. Contemporaneously, it’s also designed to forcibly redefine the family and sanction what is child abuse (same sex ‘parents’) on that same society.

It is driven by hate-mongers masquerading as progressives and abetted by Nanny Staters masquerading as ‘libertarians.’ The latter want the gubbermint to monster private institutions and beliefs by fiat. The campaign has been characterised by vilification, attacks on free speech, assaults on free enterprises, physical intimidation and attacks on opponents (from California to any Chick-fil-A near you).

32 for 32 US states that have voted on it have said no.

Its dictatorial introduction will constitute an assault on democracy (as already seen in California), the empowerment of the state and – via its deleterious effect on axiomatically superior heterosexual family – worsen the welfare state.

Its proponents are dirigistes, bullies, authoritarians, often racists (in the US), Christophobes, look-at-me babies, academic thugs and liars.

C.L.

6 Aug 12 at 10:41 pm
That it merely entrenches the problems already introduced, in part, by no-fault divorce

I don’t think it will have much impact on either family law or divorce law. By your own admission these areas of law are already a mess. Even if it did have an impact, (which I am skeptical about), then it’s not like it’s bringing to an end some golden age of family law.

dd

6 Aug 12 at 10:42 pm
Don’t believe them when they say that they will legislate in Tasmania for “gay marriage”. They lie, because they can’t do it. Only the Commonwealth can legislate on marriage; because Section 51 (xxi) of the constitution gives the Commonwealth sole power to legislate on marriage.

The best a State can do is to legislate for recognised civil or “de facto” unions; which most States have already done. See in Queensland the Property Law Act 1974 and section 32DA of the Acts Interpretation Act:

a reference to a de facto partner is a reference to either 1 of 2 persons who are living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis but who are not married to each other or related by family

the gender of the persons is not relevant

The only change they needed to make to accommodate same sex couples was to insert the words “the gender of the persons is not relevant”.

Cato the Elder

6 Aug 12 at 10:47 pm
Never did finish high school, Dot.

Caught up later though, maybe?

No harm intended.

I’m gonna tell my kids high school isn’t important as well.

It isn’t.

.

6 Aug 12 at 10:49 pm
Don’t believe them when they say that they will legislate in Tasmania for “gay marriage”. They lie, because they can’t do it. Only the Commonwealth can legislate on marriage; because Section 51 (xxi) of the constitution gives the Commonwealth sole power to legislate on marriage.

If that’s true, there will not be gay marriage in Australia in the foreseeable future. In which case, we can stop talking about it because it’s a non-issue.

dd

6 Aug 12 at 10:49 pm
Therefore, nothing at stake.

Gender is never unimportant – this view substantially undermines the rest of your case, DD.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

6 Aug 12 at 10:50 pm
dd, your position is: There are already innumerable taxes, what are the risks of another tax?

Seriously?

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 10:50 pm
Cato,

They (Giddings et. al.,) are “expanding on the Howard (Commonwealth) legislation”.

Can you explain how that doesn’t work?

.

6 Aug 12 at 10:51 pm
The objective of gay ‘marriage’ is – and always has been – to demoralise Christians and foist a phony equivalency, sodomy = heterosexual sex, upon society.

I don’t know how you can foist an equivalency on society. We cannot be forced to think the same, before or after gay marriage. Hell, even after it has been repealed sometimes.

Its dictatorial introduction will constitute an assault on democracy

America is a republic – but the States have initiative and referenda. Which have rejected it everytime. The States cannot ignore the initiative, it is law. if it comes and stays, the people have changed their mind.

via its deleterious effect on axiomatically superior heterosexual family – worsen the welfare state

Please tell us the material difference to the welfare State.

Here in Australia – a gay couple not reporting to the welfare office as de facto would cost more.

No recognition would cost more.

Some “heterosexual family” you’ve got if recognising gay marriage is catalytic to divorce and later gay marriage.

Not worth shedding a tear of envy over.

.

6 Aug 12 at 10:58 pm
dd, your position is: There are already innumerable taxes, what are the risks of another tax?

no, my position is that there aren’t a lot of risks. And as an aside, given overseas experience, “gay marriage” is a misnomer. Since female couples are far more likely to take advantage of SSM it is more correctly referred to as “lesbian marriage.”

As usual the most clearly articulated opposition comes from CL, whose position is basically this: Gay marriage undermines the centrality of the intact family unit in society. Gay families can never, after all, be completely intact families.

And hey, I’m a fan of the family unit too; but surely SSM is really more about acknowledging reality, than about social engineering. The leverage that SSM might give progressives in various ways is only possible because of institutional capture. That’s a bigger issue.

dd

6 Aug 12 at 10:59 pm
Dot

Only the Commonwealth can legislate on that topic. Section 51(xxi) reads:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: . . . (xxi) marriage;

Section 109 then says:

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

The Marriage Act then says:

“marriage” means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

I guess they could pass a law; and that law would hold until challenged; but if they call it “marriage” you can bet someone will be off to the High Court as quick as you can say “constitutionally invalid”; and the Court would have no choice but to vote it down.

Cato the Elder

6 Aug 12 at 11:14 pm
a happily married heterosexual couple are no longer deemed naturally likely to be a better option for children than a SS couple.

already the case

No it’s not.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 11:16 pm
no, my position is that there aren’t a lot of risks.

Yes, and that is what I often hear said about the risks of another tax.

As usual the most clearly articulated opposition comes from CL

I will take that as a slight.

And hey, I’m a fan of the family unit too; but surely SSM is really more about acknowledging reality, than about social engineering.

No, SSM is the reality of social engineering. Without IVF or surrogacy or a previous heterosexual relationship, there can be no family in same-sex relationships (SSR). In other words, children are extrinsic to SSR.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 11:17 pm
See here and try to say where Williams is wrong.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/end-of-the-rainbow-legislation-loophole-may-allow-gay-marriage-20120804-23m6n.html

Basically Howard wrote bad legislation, and Giddings is an opportunistic Southern Ocean, 30 lb, Red Snapper.

.

6 Aug 12 at 11:19 pm
No, SSM is the reality of social engineering

The feds recognised de facto gay marriage in 2009.

The social engineering has already been done. What remains is inequality in end of life law.

.

6 Aug 12 at 11:21 pm
Gender is never unimportant.

Really?

So SSM doesn’t minimise gender difference?

Fascinating ‘take’ dd.

Not.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 11:23 pm
A family law question, not a gay marriage question.

A birth certificate will no longer have ‘Father’s Name’ and ‘Mother’s Name’.

It’s actually not a question at all dd.

It’s a direct consequence of SSM.

Just as I said.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 11:25 pm
A birth certificate will no longer have ‘Father’s Name’ and ‘Mother’s Name’.

I don’t care.

Of couse you don’t, dd.

You informed us that right at the beginning of your latest input.

Which, by the way, is proving as valid as your input right at he beginning of the thread.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 11:27 pm
Gay marriage undermines the centrality of the intact family unit in society. Gay families can never, after all, be completely intact families.

Whiffs of a circular argument there but more importantly – show us. As so many here whined about the ambiguities in climate science, all we have here is proclamations of harm but no evidence. Show us, there are enough regions with varying gay legal status etc etc so it should be possible. Those who claim something is bad need more than argument to prove that, they need evidence. Produce it.

There is a moral inconsistency here, if they are so worried about gay marriage they should have shredded knees from praying to avert the catastrophe that adultery was supposed to bring down on us.

Our sexual mores have become less christian over the last 60 years yet we are doing fine. Go figure.

Dead Soul

6 Aug 12 at 11:28 pm
The feds recognised de facto gay marriage in 2009.

And Gillard passed and introduced a carbon tax. I better fold on that too.

What remains is inequality in end of life law.

Nothing a visit to a solicitor wouldn’t fix.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 11:30 pm
How would a post-gay-marriage world be different in this respect? We already have children with single parents, ie who have either no father or no mother. No change from the status quo. Therefore, nothing at stake.

Well it’s not deemed discrimination in law now.

It will after SSM.

You’re not only not thinking clearly dd, you are not thinking at all.

Your entire comment in response to mine was a pathetic.

Why did you bother?

Actually.. don’t answer that.

I’m not interested in any of the rubbish you come out with.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 11:32 pm
And Gillard passed and introduced a carbon tax. I better fold on that too.

These are completely different. No one is going to repeal the recognition of gay de facto marriage.

What remains is inequality in end of life law.

Nothing a visit to a solicitor wouldn’t fix.

Why should gays have to get a living will but everyone else doesn’t if they are recognised as de facto?

.

6 Aug 12 at 11:35 pm
I don’t know how you can foist an equivalency on society. We cannot be forced to think the same, before or after gay marriage.

Hey, the nanny state will sure give it a red hot go.

but surely SSM is really more about acknowledging reality,

No. It is about surrendering reality to a lie.

It’s pretty simple.

Homosexuality = Evil.

Marriage = Good.

Homosexual marriage = Evil Good = WTF?

Driftforge

6 Aug 12 at 11:35 pm
Well it’s not deemed discrimination in law now.

It will after SSM.

No.

You’re not only not thinking clearly dd, you are not thinking at all.

Your entire comment in response to mine was a pathetic.

Why did you bother?

Actually.. don’t answer that.

I’m not interested in any of the rubbish you come out with.

You come out with invective after you make an assertion.

You can’t answer questions, yet call others pathetic.

.

6 Aug 12 at 11:37 pm
No. It is about surrendering reality to a lie.

???

Surrender? To what someone else does to someone else?

This is an esoteric concept.

.

6 Aug 12 at 11:38 pm
Well it’s not deemed discrimination in law now.

It will after SSM.

No.

why ‘no’, dot?

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 11:42 pm
Our sexual mores have become less christian over the last 60 years yet we are doing fine. Go figure.

Dunno about that. Here we are having a rational discussion about whether gay marriage is a good thing or not. 60 years ago, it would have been laughable.

It’s still laughable. We just seem to have mislaid that somewhere along the way.

Cultural decay into depravity. Plenty of steps along the way. Only thing I can think is that it must flow the other direction eventually; it obviously has in the past.

Driftforge

6 Aug 12 at 11:42 pm
A dot level entry there from Driftforge.

Drifty has form too.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 11:43 pm
This is an esoteric concept.

Yep. But once you stop saying there is bad and good and knowing what they are, it has evident consequences.

Driftforge

6 Aug 12 at 11:44 pm
I meant this Driftforge entry:

It’s pretty simple.

Homosexuality = Evil.

Marriage = Good.

Homosexual marriage = Evil Good = WTF?

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 11:44 pm
A dot level entry there from Driftforge.

?

Driftforge

6 Aug 12 at 11:45 pm
You can’t answer questions

Which questions can’t I answer dot, you liar.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 11:46 pm
Homosexual marriage = Evil Good = WTF?

I don’t know that it needs be made more complex than that.

Driftforge

6 Aug 12 at 11:46 pm
?

Good.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 11:46 pm
dover:

Yes, and that is what I often hear said about the risks of another tax.

With a new tax, the risks are clear. Namely, those being taxed will be less wealthy. To equate a legislative change like this to tax, you have to show some kind of clear and unequivocal loss.

dd

6 Aug 12 at 11:47 pm
I don’t know that it needs be made more complex than that.

Of course you don’t Drifty.

And neither does dot.

JamesK

6 Aug 12 at 11:48 pm
Ah. I’m conversing with Frothy supporter JamesK.

Sometimes you forget these things.

Driftforge

6 Aug 12 at 11:49 pm
Whiffs of a circular argument there

Not at all.

Major premise: Marriage involves the possibility of procreation.
Minor premise: SSR can never be procreative.
Conclusion: SSR is not marriage.

Show us … Produce it.

No reason to given the above, but since you asked.

There is a moral inconsistency here, if they are so worried about gay marriage they should have shredded knees from praying to avert the catastrophe that adultery was supposed to bring down on us.

No, there isn’t. Major opponents of gay ‘marriage’ have “shredded knees” attempting to slow and reverse cohabitation, etc. long before gay ‘marriage’ came on the scene; see Maggie Gallagher and Robbie George, for instance.

Our sexual mores have become less christian over the last 60 years yet we are doing fine. Go figure.

Oh, yes, wonderfully well.

dover_beach

6 Aug 12 at 11:51 pm
Dot

Not wrong in an absolute sense (few legal issues are completely beyond argument, if the proponent is willing to be ridiculed) but hopelessly optimistic.

Success would really rely on everyone with standing (i.e.: the Commonwealth and everyone living in Taxmania) saying “Oh, OK then” and choosing to not challenge. Unlikely IMO.

If they try (and I guess they will) then I think they will likely fail, because the argument is too “cute” to fly in front of a Court. The article in The Pravda-on the-Yarra quotes the argument like this:

Because federal marriage laws were amended by former Prime Minister John Howard in 2004 to define marriage as between a man and a woman, it was possible for states to argue that the federal marriage law did not cover same-sex couples – and they were free to legislate for them.

The counter argument is that the Federal Act regulates marriage between people and the definition excludes same sex couples. On that interpretation the State Act would fail.

They can argue it all they like; but I think they will likely lose if challenged, because the definition in the Marriage Act is clear, so if it’s not between one man and one woman, it’s not marriage.

They can argue that they want to legislate for “marriage” between same sex couples, or between dogs and goldfish, if they want. But if they call it “marriage” they are at serious risk of any challenge knocking it over. Not 100% certain; but pretty bloody close to it.

Even if they “win” the effect will be to be “married” in Taxmania only, not for the purposes of any other State (unless the other State elects to legislate to recognise it) and not for the purposes of Federal law (and everything that depends on Federal law – taxes, welfare etc.)

OTOH, if they avoid the use of the word “marriage” they can pretty much do what they want.

Which is more important to them, do you think, the symbol, or the practicality; the management of a policy issue, or the noble Quixote-like but ultimately pointless gesture?

Cato the Elder

6 Aug 12 at 11:55 pm
As usual the most clearly articulated opposition comes from CL

I will take that as a slight.

LOL sorry dover.
Reading back I see that you’ve made several arguments, which I summarise thus. (in my own words, but I’m trying to fairly represent your opinion)

1. calling gay marriage ‘marriage’ doesn’t make it so;

2. marriage is a long standing heterosexual institution; marriage evolved as a mechanism to deal with children and breeding which is a feature of heterosexual couples;

3. there will be disruptive unintended consequences in family law;

4. the slippery slope: gay marriage opens the door to other currently disallowed variants of marriage such as polygamy.

I find 1 and 2 unconvincing and responded to the other two earlier.

dd

6 Aug 12 at 11:58 pm
So a gay couple walk into a bar and proudly say “we’re married”. Does the crowd:

(1) ignore them
(2) beat them up
(3) congratulate them
(4) laugh at their ridiculous claim?

The real answer to this will show whether “same sex marriage” is an ill judged attempt to force society to accept something that it is not willing to accept; or recognition of something that society already accepts.

Cato the Elder

7 Aug 12 at 12:03 am
The real answer to this will show whether “same sex marriage” is an ill judged attempt to force society to accept something that it is not willing to accept; or recognition of something that society already accepts.

Really?

I can see politeness signifying zip

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 12:06 am
I’m tipping (1), Cato. Safest option lest one is publicly vilified as a hater and homophobic. And judging by the way things have been handled in the US over Chick-Fil-A, best to say nothing.

Gab

7 Aug 12 at 12:07 am
Cato

Williams might be looking for ALP pre selection, but he is a very good law professor.

Even if they “win” the effect will be to be “married” in Taxmania only, not for the purposes of any other State (unless the other State elects to legislate to recognise it) and not for the purposes of Federal law (and everything that depends on Federal law – taxes, welfare etc.)

What happened to full faith and credit?

.

7 Aug 12 at 12:08 am
dd, in what way is 2. unconvincing? If marriage is not a “long standing heterosexual institution… evolved as a mechanism to deal with children” what is it?

dover_beach

7 Aug 12 at 12:09 am
Ah. I’m conversing with Frothy supporter JamesK.

Sometimes you forget these things.

Yes yes Drifty, ur deep thinking and subtle.

Any one who opposes SSM is homophobic (Homosexuality = Evil) and “frothy”.

We get ur ‘drift’.

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 12:12 am
dd, and since you’re an empiricist, you’ll appreciate the counterfactual: would marriage exist if we reproduced asexually?

dover_beach

7 Aug 12 at 12:15 am
Because although that’s true, it’s long since expanded beyond the boundaries dictated by village or tribal life. As others have mentioned, there’s the obvious case of post-menopausal or otherwise infertile couples marrying, and although technology is now making previously infertile people fertile, it’s still outside that original narrow purpose.

So this shows that marriage serves some broader social purpose than just ensuring a stable home environment for kids. Adults who don’t intend to have kids, or already have kids, or who are incapable of it, all marry and it is hunky dory with society if they do. Same sex couples, surely, are just another case of those unable-to-breed couples who nonetheless want to enjoy the benefits of the social institution.

dd

7 Aug 12 at 12:16 am
Really?

Really.

Even politeness might be enough.

“I think that’s icky but it’s none of my business” is streets ahead of “Who are those poofters trying to kid? That’s never a marriage” which is itself an improvement over “Lets give them a bashing to show what we think of them”

Cato the Elder

7 Aug 12 at 12:17 am
USA concept.

Cato the Elder

7 Aug 12 at 12:17 am
would marriage exist if we reproduced asexually?

an interesting but unanswerable question.

I think if we discovered a race of hermaphrodites, they would have marriage. Humans just seem to like falling in love and pairing off.

dd

7 Aug 12 at 12:18 am
A lot of the Australian constitution was ripped from the US constitution.

Please see s 118.

.

7 Aug 12 at 12:19 am
Really.

“The real answer to this will show whether “same sex marriage” is an ill judged attempt to force society to accept something that it is not willing to accept; or recognition of something that society already accepts.”

The real answer really will show what say it will show?

The implication is that “politeness” is a real answer.

Really?

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 12:21 am
Gotta go work.

I’ll stand by my original view: the argument is too “cute” to be likely to win (although in theory it could win)

Have fun.

Cato the Elder

7 Aug 12 at 12:22 am
I see dd still providing no advance on his ‘who cares’ rationale

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 12:23 am
I see dd still providing no advance on his ‘who cares’ rationale

that was only in response to the wording on government issued certificates.

dd

7 Aug 12 at 12:25 am
yes, Really.

As in “That’s none of my bloody business” is a genuine answer.

My real view is that they should repeal the Marriage Act and switch to a minimal recording of whatever private arrangements people want to use. But I admit that’s not gonna happen any time soon, so I don’t sweat on it.

Hi Ho, off to work I go.

Cato the Elder

7 Aug 12 at 12:26 am
that was only in response to the wording on government issued certificates.

I was actually referring to your thoughts on hermaphrodites dd.

Which are no different to any of your thoughts on SSM

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 12:29 am
Dover the study you linked to above about children not being better off with same-sex parents, was it the one (the second study) the gay lobby group had tried to stop it from being publised and the author sacked from university? Or is that another study?

Gab

7 Aug 12 at 12:30 am
As in “That’s none of my bloody business” is a genuine answer.

So that was your hidden option then?

Really?

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 12:32 am
I was actually referring to your thoughts on hermaphrodites dd.

It was just a thought bubble. A thought experiment, in response to dover’s question. I didn’t say or imply “who cares” in respect to it.

dd

7 Aug 12 at 12:32 am
As others have mentioned, there’s the obvious case of post-menopausal or otherwise infertile couples marrying,

dd, those cases don’t present a problem.

So this shows that marriage serves some broader social purpose than just ensuring a stable home environment for kids.

Yes, of course it does. Marriage is not limited to procreation. Noticed you used “not just”; that indicates the relationship must still enjoy the possibility of the performance of the procreative act. That is why the only instance in which a marriage may not be allowed, is the instance of where the male is unable to ‘perform’; but even here the inclination is to ‘hope for the best’.

Same sex couples, surely, are just another case of those unable-to-breed couples who nonetheless want to enjoy the benefits of the social institution.

Again, the link above, my friend.

Now, I’m off to bed. A man can only do so much.

dover_beach

7 Aug 12 at 12:33 am
Yes, Gab, that is the one. Night all.

dover_beach

7 Aug 12 at 12:35 am
It was just a thought bubble. A thought experiment, in response to dover’s question. I didn’t say or imply “who cares” in respect to it.

I can’t but agree you didn’t say “who cares?” in respect of it

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 12:35 am
So, to sum up where we have arrived at in this debate:

1) Poofs and dykes should be allowed to have civil marriages for legal purposes (medical and estate law);

2) No child should ever be adopted to a homosexual couple where a suitable heterosexual couple is available. The rights of the child should trump those of the impetuous and selfish fairy;

3) Everyone should shut the fuck up about SSM because it’s a really fucking boring first world problem;

4) JamesK is really emotional and adversarial. Possibly pre-menstrual.

I think that’s an accurate summary.

Abu Chowdah

7 Aug 12 at 3:07 am
5) Gay marriage is slightly ridiculous but so is voting Labor and we haven’t banned that yet.

6) Etc

Abu Chowdah

7 Aug 12 at 3:08 am
A birth certificate will no longer have ‘Father’s Name’ and ‘Mother’s Name’.

Birth certificates are already full of inaccuracy, since you retrospectively change things on them, including sex, and you can add adoptive parents on it. If you’re worried about your birth certificate not being an accurate record of your birth, then that ship has already sailed.

Quentin George

7 Aug 12 at 7:07 am
So, to sum up where Abu has arrived at in this debate:

Look at me.

Look at me!

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 8:17 am
If you’re worried about your birth certificate not being an accurate record of your birth, then that ship has already sailed.

Now that’s a very little and unlikely ‘if’.

Yet another substantial contribution from Quentin to the SSM debate.

Evidently like Abu, dot, dd and Quentin apart of “who cares” passive aggressive crowd.

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 8:21 am
“who cares?”

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 8:21 am
“who cares?”

If you’re characterising my position that way, then I guess it’s not entirely wrong for the following reasons.
1. if it ever did exist, an extremely tiny proportion of the population will take advantage of it;
2. any leverage for progressives is due to institutional capture
3. It’s never going to be federal policy
4. Cato outlines above why it can’t be state policy.

Apparently you care because of the myriad little changes that eradicate the words “husband” and wife” and “mother” and “father” from official records. Which, I have to concede, does have some emotional clout.

dd

7 Aug 12 at 8:30 am
Apparently you care because of the myriad little changes that eradicate the words “husband” and wife” and “mother” and “father” from official records

That’s an intentional misrepresentation on your part dd or you’re a liar.

Which is it?

If you don’t like the “who cares?” school how about the “It’s no skin of my nose brigade”?

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 8:33 am
That’s an intentional misrepresentation on your part dd or you’re a liar.

Which is it?

Neither. It was a sincere attempt to figure out your position, when all you do is offer sarcastic rhetorical questions and cryptic one-liners.

dd

7 Aug 12 at 8:57 am
It was a sincere attempt to figure out your position

I don’t believe you dd.

My position is clear over many tiresome SSM threads at the Cat.

To be fair so is yours.

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 9:08 am
OK Dot, final post (to show I wasn’t running away)

Yes, section 118 requires the Federal grubbermint to give “full faith and credit” to State laws; but not if they are inconsistent with a Federal law. In that case, section 109 cuts in and the Federal law overrides “to the extent of the inconsistency”

I was wrong when I originally said that only the Feds could make laws about marriage. Section 51(xxi) gives the Feds power to make laws but not exclusive power. So the States used to have laws about marriage and could again, but those laws will be invalid to the extent that they are inconsistent with Federal law.

To win the argument that the Federal Act leaves a “loophole” which can be relied on to enable States to (validly) make laws to authorise same sex marriage, Taxmania must persuade the High Court that the Federal Act is not meant to “cover the field”; and that the definition of “marriage” (and other similar provisions in the Act) do not show a clear intention by the Feds to make marriage only between one man and one woman.

IMO that argument should fail.

If it succeeds, the “full faith and credence” provision will require the Feds to recognise the couple as married in Taxmania – but won’t require them to recognise the couple as married for the purposes of Federal law, because to that extent the provision would still be clearly “inconsistent” with Federal law.

And of course the Feds could amend the Marriage Act to say something along the lines that “We really mean it when we say marriage is only between one man and one woman. Same sex couples can’t get married, too bad”; in which case the State Act would still be on the books but would be invalid due to section 109.

Of course, as the Property Law Act here in Queensland (and similar legislation in other States) show, the States can and have legislated for same sex “de facto” relationships.

Back to work.

Cato the Elder

7 Aug 12 at 9:52 am
PMT, it is!

Abu Chowdah

7 Aug 12 at 10:00 am
Abu:
1) Poofs and dykes should be allowed to have civil marriages for legal purposes (medical and estate law);

No, these legal purposes could simply be achieved by visiting a solicitor. Marriage did not come about for medical and estate purposes.

QG:
Birth certificates are already full of inaccuracy,

So why not another inaccuracy, you say? Again, strange how this reasoning is not employed in tax matters, for instance?

dd:
an interesting but unanswerable question.

I think if we discovered a race of hermaphrodites, they would have marriage. Humans just seem to like falling in love and pairing off.

No, its interesting and answerable. Human beings like “pairing off” because they are sexual pairs.

To shift the focus a little, and to show why point 2 above is not unconvincing, why is marriage, properly speaking, an exclusive relationship?

dover_beach

7 Aug 12 at 10:08 am
No, these legal purposes could simply be achieved by visiting a solicitor. Marriage did not come about for medical and estate purposes.

Oh, then what’s all the noise about? All of this wailing and remonstrating (on both sides) is like stray cats rutting late into the night. What a fucking din!

Abu Chowdah

7 Aug 12 at 10:19 am
Essentially what CL said. They what SSR to be recognized as normatively identical to marriage.

dover_beach

7 Aug 12 at 10:37 am
6) Etc

Abu, 6 should be to distrust any polling on the topic as the experience in the US that a “Bradley Effect” seems to exist.

(i.e. Though consistent polling makes it sound like there is a plurality for change, if voters are asked the same question in the voting booth they answer in a different way).

Further, I suspect many people are not aware that the Civil Marriages option exists at the current time.

Token

7 Aug 12 at 10:58 am
A recent broadcast of a public forum discussion, including the well-known Dennis Altman, made it clear that they don’t actually want marriage as traditionally understood, and in fact want some other form of union which allows their admitted promiscuity to be part of the deal.
The gay and lesbian lobbies have already gained too much leeway by having more than their share of PC media on side. They now believe they can achieve any outcome if they just keep pumping away at it for long enough. I have no problem with homosexual people per se, but once they get political (or even worse, tastelessly sordid!) they lose me.
I am in agreement broadly with C.L.
No-fault divorce and the subsequent changes in many people’s attitude to marriage doesn’t mean everyone feels it’s a disposable arrangement, but there has been damage done to the concept of working at your marriage and keeping it stable for the long term.
I’m forced to the conclusion that it’s really about some notional scoreboard (we want what you’ve got, and respectability) or about inheritances and alimony.

blogstrop

7 Aug 12 at 11:16 am
A recent broadcast of a public forum discussion, including the well-known Dennis Altman, made it clear that they don’t actually want marriage as traditionally understood, and in fact want some other form of union which allows their admitted promiscuity to be part of the deal.

And they have a point. Exclusivity as an essential element of SSR makes no sense, but it makes perfect sense regarding marriage. Again, one more reason why marriage and SSR are not the same.

dover_beach

7 Aug 12 at 11:27 am
To win the argument that the Federal Act leaves a “loophole” which can be relied on to enable States to (validly) make laws to authorise same sex marriage, Taxmania must persuade the High Court that the Federal Act is not meant to “cover the field”; and that the definition of “marriage” (and other similar provisions in the Act) do not show a clear intention by the Feds to make marriage only between one man and one woman.

If it is challenged. What chance has a challenge got if the Federal Government supports the law?

If it succeeds, the “full faith and credence” provision will require the Feds to recognise the couple as married in Taxmania – but won’t require them to recognise the couple as married for the purposes of Federal law, because to that extent the provision would still be clearly “inconsistent” with Federal law.

Can you show me an example of where anything like this has ever occurred in Australian law?

And of course the Feds could amend the Marriage Act to say something along the lines that “We really mean it when we say marriage is only between one man and one woman. Same sex couples can’t get married, too bad”; in which case the State Act would still be on the books but would be invalid due to section 109.

A lesbian fembot Senator is a ranking ALP Minister as is a bearded PM who swung both ways when she was younger.

Oakeshott is going to go into early retirement to uphold hetero only marriage?

If Abbot cares about this more than the NBN, debt or the fact that the Navy has one seaworthy vessel – God help us all.

.

7 Aug 12 at 12:05 pm
A recent broadcast of a public forum discussion, including the well-known Dennis Altman, made it clear that they don’t actually want marriage as traditionally understood, and in fact want some other form of union which allows their admitted promiscuity to be part of the deal.

I suspect that groups such as “Equal Love” will then make some straight cads happy…

And they have a point. Exclusivity as an essential element of SSR makes no sense, but it makes perfect sense regarding marriage. Again, one more reason why marriage and SSR are not the same.

Except if gays do get married – to which most who take up the deal are monogamous lesbian couples, not 20 year old gay partyboys who spend 30 hrs a week in the gym and their whole weekend trolling the Colombian.

.

7 Aug 12 at 12:07 pm
That is a ridiculous answer, dot. The point is there is no reason why monogamy should be a feature of SSR (including lesbian couples) whereas there clearly is regarding marriage.

dover_beach

7 Aug 12 at 12:14 pm
If Abbot cares about this more than the NBN, debt or the fact that the Navy has one seaworthy vessel – God help us all.

Yeah imagine that.

Abbott might be concerned about the further self-destruction of western cultural democracy-type civil society in own country.

Hey…he might even be mistaken him for a leader or something.

Whilst twits like dot blithely imply he couldn’t possibly walk and chew gum simultaneously.

Just more indignant lightweight dross from the ever facile one

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 12:16 pm
That is a ridiculous answer, dot.

No it is reality. Read up on your Steve Sailer.

Abbott might be concerned about the further self-destruction of western cultural democracy-type civil society in own country.

Not the military
Not the productive capacity of the country
Not “live and let live”

Hey…he might even be mistaken him for a leader or something.

Leader? Jesus Christ. He is our would be servant. Third world countries call their Governments leaders.

Whilst twits like dot blithely imply he couldn’t possibly walk and chew gum simultaneously.

If Abbot thinks he is protecting society by stopping gays from marrying…he is deluded.

.

7 Aug 12 at 12:31 pm
Not the military
Not the productive capacity of the country
Not “live and let live”

What are you on about, you fool?
Have you just sucked on a bong of hydroponically cultured shit?

Leader? Jesus Christ. He is our would be servant.

Hey….deep maan, ya know?

If Abbot thinks he is protecting society by stopping gays from marrying…he is deluded.

He – nor any one else is “stopping gays from marrying”.

You’ve been corrected on that before like so much more puerile drivel in-lieu of an argument that you repeatedly pebble-dash the thread with.

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 12:42 pm
dot has an answer for everything and a response to nothing

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 12:44 pm
No it is reality.

What is a reality? That some SSR are monogamous. Wow. But the point is, SSR have no more reason being monogamous than they have being promiscuous. They can be either because exclusivity is not an essential feature of SSR. The same is not true of marriage; promiscuity undermines one of the principal functions that the institution of marriage aims to fulfill.

dover_beach

7 Aug 12 at 12:48 pm
What is a reality? That some SSR are monogamous. Wow. But the point is, SSR have no more reason being monogamous than they have being promiscuous. They can be either because exclusivity is not an essential feature of SSR. The same is not true of marriage; promiscuity undermines one of the principal functions that the institution of marriage aims to fulfill.

Which brings me back to the compromise I suggested months ago. Make SSM compulsory and apply imprisonment or other harsh statutory punishment (such as the pillory) to infidelity. Then we’ll see how many are serious about marriage.

Abu Chowdah

7 Aug 12 at 6:43 pm
Not the military
Not the productive capacity of the country
Not “live and let live”

What are you on about, you fool?
Have you just sucked on a bong of hydroponically cultured shit?<

So James you find NONE of that important or as important as not allowing gays to marry, even when they may be treated under law as such (except for end of life decisions)?

That’s very illuminating. Shafting some gay dude from not turning off his boyfriend’s life support is as important as those issues.

Right…

Leader? Jesus Christ. He is our would be servant.

Hey….deep maan, ya know?

It is. You think Tony Abbot is your leader? Fucking space cadet.

If Abbot thinks he is protecting society by stopping gays from marrying…he is deluded.

He – nor any one else is “stopping gays from marrying”.

Yes, he said he would.

You’ve been corrected on that before like so much more puerile drivel in-lieu of an argument that you repeatedly pebble-dash the thread with

You think gays can’t marry because you don’t think it is the same as a hetero marriage.

Well duh.

That’s why it’s “gay marriage”.

.

7 Aug 12 at 6:56 pm
What is a reality? That some SSR are monogamous. Wow.

NO

Most of them are.

But the point is, SSR have no more reason being monogamous than they have being promiscuous.

Wrong, they self select. It’s in the data.

They can be either because exclusivity is not an essential feature of SSR.

Nor is it an essential feature of no fault divorce.

The same is not true of marriage; promiscuity undermines one of the principal functions that the institution of marriage aims to fulfill.

Not in law since 1975 and even if everyone screws around, if there is wherewithal the result is the same.

.

7 Aug 12 at 6:58 pm
Your responses to me immediately above are intellectually embarrassing, dot.

dover_beach

7 Aug 12 at 7:24 pm
DB, the article you linked to as your answer to my question is a load of horsehit. You do realise that, right?

Here’s a summation of that article:

Marriage is all about children. Infertile couples can’t have children, but they can have sex in the same way that fertile couples do, so at least they are trying.

Also, homosexuals can not fall in love with each other. Only heteros.

Did you even read that article before you linked it?

Yobbo

7 Aug 12 at 7:53 pm
Your responses to me immediately above are intellectually embarrassing, dot.

No they are not.

You have no response to them.

We won, Yobbo.

.

7 Aug 12 at 7:58 pm
Yes, I did read that wonderful article. I visit Public Discourse often.

dover_beach

7 Aug 12 at 8:05 pm
They’re pitiful, dot; tourette-style responses.

dover_beach

7 Aug 12 at 8:08 pm
You can’t even deal with the reality of the data Steve Sailer presents.

It has broken your worldview and you need to rethink it.

.

7 Aug 12 at 8:11 pm
You can’t even deal with the reality of the data Steve Sailer presents.

What data has Steve Sailer presented? I’d like to see it. In one instance you say they “self select”? Self-select what? Whether they’ll be promiscuous or monogamous? If so, that is precisely my point. Exclusivity in SSR is not an essential feature. And immediately after you say that “Nor is [exclusivity] an essential feature of no fault divorce” which simply does not make sense. Did you mean marriage? If so, exclusivity is, conceptually and practically (as a matter of law). And when I say that the absence of exclusivity in marriage undermines one of two of its principal social functions you say, “Not in law since 1975 and even if everyone screws around, if there is wherewithal the result is the same.” Actually it is in law, the relationship is described in the act as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others“. Setting that aside, your argument is silly because there is not, in substantial cases, the “wherewithal” and even where there is children are still denied a stable environment and thus the function of providing a stable environment to children is undermined. You can take this last argument up with Humphreys in the other thread because he admits this function in his argument therein.

dover_beach

7 Aug 12 at 8:44 pm
They’re pitiful, dot; tourette-style responses.

Even when speaking truth to imbecility, dover still manages to sound polite.

JamesK

7 Aug 12 at 9:14 pm
Yes, Dover is polite and seems to be a real gentleman. Although I did see Dover full-on cuss here one day. I was shocked, aghast I tell you, but then SFB was the cause so it was understandable.

Gab

7 Aug 12 at 9:19 pm

Catallaxy Files

Must read weekend reading

465 Responses to 'Must read weekend reading'

Leave a Reply

Liberty Quotes

Ongoing Debates

Catallaxy Surveys

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Archives

Pages

Blogroll

Meta

Catallaxy Files

Must read weekend reading

Share this:

465 Responses to 'Must read weekend reading'

Leave a Reply

Liberty Quotes

Ongoing Debates

Catallaxy Surveys

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Archives

Pages

Blogroll

Meta