Debate Marriage here at Catallaxy Files

Debate Marriage here

485 comments

Written by Sinclair Davidson

February 7th, 2013 at 10:55 pm

Posted in Open Forum

485 Responses to 'Debate Marriage here'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Debate Marriage here'.

Same Sex Marriage. Does it really matter? Who honestly cares? I do not because it is a non-issue. That is my contribution.

Andrew

7 Feb 13 at 10:58 pm
Well said.

Sinclair Davidson

7 Feb 13 at 10:58 pm
Debate marriage.

I’m for it except when they shouldn’t.

Infidel Tiger

7 Feb 13 at 10:59 pm
I could care less so long as they choose a different word.

Words matter. “Marriage” has a specific meaning.

mct

7 Feb 13 at 11:21 pm
Yep, I am all for it too. It brings men and women properly together.

But you all knew that already.

However:

“Marriage is one of the leading causes of divorce.” – Anon

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

7 Feb 13 at 11:26 pm
I’ve warmed to same sex marriage and cannot think of any obvious negatives. I think Andrew Sullivan’s arguments from 1989 are still relevant, and at least in the context of the UK, the Labour Party are becoming so toxic due to their alliance with Islamic extremists and Jew-baiters, that the Tories have an opportunity to put a wedge through the Left’s Rainbow Coalition. We have already seen cracks starting to open, particularly in Boris Johnson’s victory over Ken Livingstone, who really did turn off a lot of socially liberal upscale people (such as Jews and gays), with his disgusting association with religious extremists. Also, I can see benefits in forcing gay men to take monogamous relationships seriously and moderate their behaviour.

The only potential negative is that they might be planning to force churches to hold gay ceremonies. This battle should be fought when we come to it, but in the meantime it should be made clear to homosexual activists that they are not to campaign against freedom of conscience, and if they do, all support for gay marriage will be withdrawn.

Fisky

7 Feb 13 at 11:34 pm
I’ve warmed to same sex marriage and cannot think of any obvious negatives.

Lucky guy. Hope he treats you right.

Infidel Tiger

7 Feb 13 at 11:36 pm
Heh

Fisky

7 Feb 13 at 11:44 pm
According to gay activists everyone is gay anyway, and lots of people get married, so gay marriage already exists.

More seriously, churches already being forced to host gay ceremonies (in Denmark I think).

Keith

7 Feb 13 at 11:49 pm
Homosexualists in Britain are already demanding the churches marry them.

Infidel Tiger

7 Feb 13 at 11:52 pm
Are they? Well, that’s that. A 10-year ban on gay marriage is now unavoidable.

Fisky

7 Feb 13 at 11:54 pm
Actually Fisk, I’m kinda with you on this. The libs support gay marriage once they’re in power. It really doesn’t matter much anyway as the state has wrecked marriage anyway.

This would surprise the left and give him serious cover to go after a lot of other things the left hold dear.

JC

7 Feb 13 at 11:56 pm
Homosexualists in Britain are already demanding the churches marry them.

In the interests of fairness the state needs to force the kiddie-fiddlers to marry same sex couples in the eyes of God.

Otherwise where’s the romance?

JamesK

7 Feb 13 at 11:57 pm
Yes, JC, my preferred strategy is to stonewall in opposition and then introduce it once you get into government. You can’t trust Labo(u)r to include freedom of conscience provisions, but the Right will be forced to put them in.

Fisky

7 Feb 13 at 11:59 pm
Why should heterosexuals always be the henpecked ones.

Frying pans and rolling pins are bisexual.

I’m not entirely convinced though by the theory that if enough homo’s marry, the hetero’s marital grief will be correspondingly reduced.

Don’t think it quite works that way!

Up The Workers!

8 Feb 13 at 12:00 am
One great thing about homosexualist intertwinement is that it has finished David Cameron for good. He will definitely lose in 2015 or be replaced beforehand.

He is as popular as a spare dick at a wedding now. The conservatives hate him and he won’t win a single vote from the left who will hate him regardless of how much he kisses their dates.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 12:03 am
Ok, it’s all settled, then?
So, now what about all the calls for polygamy, after all its practiced around the world. Can we get onto that discussion?

Michaelc58

8 Feb 13 at 12:08 am
I don’t think much of David Cameron, but he has probably got it right on this issue. It is important that the Left be denied the opportunity to introduce gay marriage on their terms.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 12:09 am
So, now what about all the calls for polygamy, after all its practiced around the world. Can we get onto that discussion?

If you are introducing gay marriage on the grounds of “free contract”, then yes, polygamy is logical. However, I do not believe that these are good grounds for supporting gay marriage. It will have a civilizing effect on (homosexual) men in particular, and probably reduce STD transmission. Polygamy is likely to have the opposite effect, and in any case, polygamist societies are failures as they produce an underclass of sexually-frustrated jihadist recruits.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 12:12 am
Read the British papers and see what Cameron’s idiocy has done. The left still hate him even though he is their comrade in arms and the conservatives wish thistles to sprout from his genitals.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 12:12 am
He is as popular as a spare dick at a wedding now. The conservatives hate him and he won’t win a single vote from the left who will hate him regardless of how much he kisses their dates.

spot on.

The reach-across-the-aisle MSM beloved pretend Tories are about as welcome as a particularly smelly unflushable when election time beckons.

John McCain and Malcolm Turnbull were given salient lessons but are seemingly incapable of assimilating the bleedin’ obvious.

Cameron was clearly a lost cause from way before he did what the electorate could never have reasonably imagined: forming a coalition with a far more leftist party than Labour.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 12:12 am
Yes, but the point is not to get the Left’s approval. That is not the purpose behind gay marriage. The purpose is to deny the Left the psychological boost they desperately seek by passing gay marriage in the face of furious and impotent conservative opposition. They get off on that. Instead, take the initiative, pass gay marriage, reassure upscale gays that you aren’t hostile, and deny the Left an issue.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 12:15 am
Sorry, that should read:

The purpose is to deny the Left the psychological boost they desperately seek from passing gay marriage in the face of furious and impotent conservative opposition.

What I mean is that the Left are just gagging to pass this symbolic change and rub conservatives’ noses in it. I say it’s a change that will probably be on balance positive, and that conservatives lose nothing by embracing it.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 12:16 am
Debate marriage? There is no debate in a marriage.

“Yes, dear”.

Pedro the Ignorant

8 Feb 13 at 12:17 am
Yes, but the point is not to get the Left’s approval. That is not the purpose behind gay marriage. The purpose is to deny the Left the psychological boost they desperately seek by passing gay marriage in the face of furious and impotent conservative opposition. They get off on that. Instead, take the initiative, pass gay marriage, reassure upscale gays that you aren’t hostile, and deny the Left an issue.

No.

It really is key for society.

The Left get the destruction of gender difference.

That’s end game for them.

Not equality of the sexes but equivalency of the sexes

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 12:21 am
I like long walks on the beach at sunset, holding hands; dinners – yes dinners in cute little undiscovered restaurants run by furriners; horse riding; ten pin bowling, but in a fun format, not in an aggressively competitive manner; lazy Sunday afternoons but also occasional late nights at the discotheque; non smokers and light drinkers – honest people like myself; and genuine people because I do not want to be hurt again.

Tall, fit, financially independent mature but carefree male who travels OS* with gay abandon, as if it is second nature.

I also love the unbridled freedom of the wild breeze in my hair in my Mercedes (the two seater sports one, not my saloon).

Contact Mick Member No 1735099

* other countries, abroad, overseas

Mick Gold Coast QLD

8 Feb 13 at 12:22 am
Marriage isn’t a debate, although I have never done it, it goes something like “Do you take….”

Cut and dry no debate and have to answer yes or no not like a politician.

kelly liddle

8 Feb 13 at 12:45 am
No.

It really is key for society.

The Left get the destruction of gender difference.

That’s end game for them.

Not equality of the sexes but equivalency of the sexes

Seriously, James, how do you propose they are going to do that? Will they pass a bill outlawing the Y chromosome? Are they going to “put a price” on testosterone? The Left can’t abolish genetics and biology, and gay marriage is not going to change that.

This is all a fantasy. Gay marriage is probably going to happen sooner or later and I think it is one of those harmless symbolic reforms that can be pinched from the Left, at no cost. In fact, it is more likely that there will be some benefits from gay marriage, if it legitimises and encourages gay monogamy.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 12:46 am
I could care less so long as they choose a different word.

Words matter. “Marriage” has a specific meaning.

South Park did it…

[Governor] I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don’t want the word “marriage” corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else?

You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as “married”, you can be… butt buddies.

Instead of being “man and wife”, you’ll be… butt buddies. You won’t be “betrothed”, you’ll be… butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a “bride and groom”, you’d be… butt buddies.

Harold

8 Feb 13 at 12:50 am
This is all a fantasy

I actually wish you were right.

But you’re not.

The black family in the USA over the last 50 years is the canary in the coal mine.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 12:51 am
I missed a good bit at the end, worth checking the link out. (or view the episode!)

Harold

8 Feb 13 at 12:52 am
Fisk, it just legitimates the removal of one parent from the biological heritage of a child.

That stinks as a social policy.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

8 Feb 13 at 12:55 am
JamesK, the decline of the black family (which is now slowly being reversed going by the encouraging trends among millenials) has nothing to do with gay marriage. Nothing whatever. If the Liberals introduce gay marriage as a civil option, with an absolute freedom of association and conscience clause to protect churches, the worst thing that might happen is some nasty divorces in 5-10 years’ time. But encouraging gays to choose a lifelong partner and stick with them is exactly the opposite of what the Great Society did to black families.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 12:56 am
Beagles.

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 12:57 am
Fisk, it just legitimates the removal of one parent from the biological heritage of a child.

That stinks as a social policy.

I haven’t got the faintest clue what you are talking about.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 12:57 am
JamesK, the decline of the black family (which is now slowly being reversed going by the encouraging trends among millenials) has nothing to do with gay marriage

Correct.

It is to do with the Left and state paternalism.

The root is absent and irresponsible fatherhood.

SSM is another means to that end.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 1:01 am
Having said that, I don’t think the Liberals should come out and support gay marriage unless they are in their second or third term. Before that, they can just say it isn’t important. And take some time to study the effects of the British legislation – if there is a statistically significant increase in sexual relationships between humans and beagles, then we will know why.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 1:01 am
More seriously, churches already being forced to host gay ceremonies (in Denmark I think).

No surprises there, many ministers there don’t even believe in God.

But encouraging gays to choose a lifelong partner and stick with them is exactly the opposite of what the Great Society did to black families.

The irony is that promoting Gay marriage will reduce the number of sexual partners hence reduce STD rates.

John H.

8 Feb 13 at 1:01 am
The irony is that promoting Gay marriage will reduce the number of sexual partners hence reduce STD rates.

Laudable hope but wishful thinking would be the kind descriptor.

It is absolutely not an argument to support the redefinition of Marriage

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 1:04 am
The irony is that promoting Gay marriage will reduce the number of sexual partners hence reduce STD rates.

Precisely so. My views on sodomy are on the record and I do not retract them – sodomy can never be made safe and cause long-lasting health problems. Gay marriage will probably lead to less sodomy and better health outcomes.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 1:04 am
Too late at night to be giving you a sex education class, Fisky.

You know the stuff – when a daddy loves a mummy very much and they decide to have a little baby, then the daddy hugs the mummy until …etc.

Except you little kiddo have two daddies, and you little kiddo have two mummies and that is how they made you.

Go to bed and think about it.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

8 Feb 13 at 1:04 am
James nobody wants to make you do anything why do you care so much?

kelly liddle

8 Feb 13 at 1:07 am
My views on sodomy are on the record and I do not retract them –

Which reminds me of a wonderful Jimmy Carr joke:

How do you get a homosexual to have sex with a woman?

Put shit in her c..t.

John H.

8 Feb 13 at 1:07 am
Laudable hope but wishful thinking would be the kind descriptor.

Why? Behaviour can change over time, and in fact the preferences of millenials are clearly more conservative than previous generations.

It is absolutely not an argument to support the redefinition of Marriage

Sure, I don’t think it’s a compelling argument in itself. I do think the overall cultural changes from gay marriage will be positive, and see no compelling reasons to knock it back.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 1:07 am
Fuck it.

I say we go the whole hog and remove all constraints to marriage between consenting adults. That includes legalising polyamorous unions, fixed period marriages and any other variation in between.

Proponents of same sex marriage say that the State has no right forbid marriage between two consenting adults irrespective of gender. The same argument applies to the numbers of those persons wanting to marry each other or to the State’s diktat regarding the proposed duration of marriage, which is currently (an unrealistic) ’til death do us part.

Lloyd

8 Feb 13 at 1:08 am
I’m sorry Elizabeth, I thought we were discussing gay marriage, and you seem to have introduced gay adoption into the discussion. However, I do think it is important that boys have a male role model at the least, and this should inform public policy if possible.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 1:09 am
Proponents of same sex marriage say that the State has no right forbid marriage

This seems to be something that many people get confused about. Australia does not forbid anything including polygamy in practice. This is about recognition by the state.

kelly liddle

8 Feb 13 at 1:11 am
if there is a statistically significant increase in sexual relationships between humans and beagles, then we will know why.

You are being disingenuous and facetious Fisky.

The damage to society and the Family as the core structure of society will take at least a decade and perhaps many to become manifestly obvious by which time the cause may be obvious.

Even if the cause is obvious it may well be too late and too difficult to rectify it.

A dreadful new norm well been reached and freedom itself will have almost certainly been lost

Multiculturalism is a European and British leftist policy since the early 70′s and only now are the European leaders denouncing it.

The NHS has putrified the soul of the British people and even now they can’t see it as their bodies rot under its care.

Lazy facile decisions re-defining the core institution of our culture (since civilisation itself) is quite literally insane

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 1:14 am
James nobody wants to make you do anything why do you care so much?

Decent and uplifting human life revolves around caring for something greater than self Kelly

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 1:16 am
However, I do think it is important that boys have a male role model at the least, and this should inform public policy if possible.

More than that, there are some studies which indicate physiological changes without a male(and probably female) in the house: teenage girls reach puberty more quickly is one.

John H.

8 Feb 13 at 1:17 am
James, you seem to be making about 10 separate arguments that are distantly related to each other at best. There isn’t any evidence that gay marriage will cause a weakening of heterosexual relationships. It will not stop heterosexuals from becoming attracted to each other, seeking to marry, settle down and have children. All of these delightful things are based on biological impulses that no legislation can repeal.

The greatest damage to long-term heterosexual relationships has likely been “No Fault” easy divorce, the financial hardships that are caused by that, and the deterrent imposed on young men who might otherwise be attracted to marriage if they think their lives could be ruined later on. Ironically, women are not only the ones who typically demand marriage, they are also the party who usually initiate its dissolution. I think that heterosexual marriage needs to be made more attractive to men, and also that gay marriage will make not one iota of difference to this at all. None.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 1:20 am
Ok Kelly. I accept your fine distinction at face value. The point remains, if the State is persuaded to recognise same sex marriage on the grounds that it would be discriminatory not to, then what is the argument against polyamorous marriage?

If a couple is clear headed enough to define say a ten year period as being an agreed marriage period, why must they go through the sham of vowing eternal union, even if that vow is only implicit?

Either the State gets a say or it doesn’t. Pretty simple, really.

Personally, I prefer the status quo. But if the status quo is not to be preserved then we shouldn’t just stop at same sex marriage. The logic just doesn’t square.

Lloyd

8 Feb 13 at 1:23 am
Those of us who think that marriage is spiritual and holy should henceforth refer to it as Holy Matrimony. Can’t quite see THEM wanting equality if its called that. But ya gotta laugh when you think of all the blissful divorces coming our way soon.

face ache

8 Feb 13 at 1:31 am
There isn’t any evidence that gay marriage will cause a weakening of heterosexual relationships.

Listen to yourself.

“There isn’t any evidence”

FFS Fisky grow a pair.

That’s what they said about the pill, divorce and state funding of single parent families and abortion and etc etc etc

The point is SSM will further weaken the institution of Marriage to pointlessness on the societal level.

It will make Law that man and woman parenting is no different to single parenting is no different to same sex couple parenting.

That is clearly bollox in reality.

SSM will overwhelmingly emasculates society and disadvantage men in general.

Male child pedagogy in particular will go the way of black America.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 1:32 am
What is male child pedagogy?

Lloyd

8 Feb 13 at 1:36 am
FFS Fisky grow a pair.

You don’t seem to have noticed that I am arguing from a deeply-held conviction.

That’s what they said about the pill, divorce and state funding of single parent families and abortion and etc etc etc

I don’t know what order of fallacy to put this under. Some social changes have been positive – such as the legalization of homosexual conduct, formal civic equality without reference to ancestry, and bringing more women into the universities and the workforce – and others have been unsuccessful. I am contending that gay marriage is in the former category, although its effects will largely be felt on the margins.

The point is SSM will further weaken the institution of Marriage to pointlessness on the societal level.

No, easy divorce has weakened marriage, certainly. Gay marriage has no legal implications for heterosexual marriage. 97% of men and women will still prefer the opposite sex, and seek to find a way to procreate and rear children (although I do agree that No Fault Divorce changes the incentives in a negative way – this has nothing to do with gay marriage). Same sex marriage cannot repeal the facts of biology.

It will make Law that man and woman parenting is no different to single parenting is no different to same sex couple parenting.

Gay partner parenting is undoubtedly superior to single parenting (are you proposing to ban single parenting, BTW?), but I agree that heterosexual parenting is the ideal as it provides balanced role models to children. On the other hand, gay parenting will always be a marginal phenomena under any legal setup – it will never rise above 2-3% of all families for reasons of biology.

SSM will overwhelmingly emasculates society and disadvantage men in general.

Male child pedagogy in particular will go the way of black America.

Even if gay parenting were as bad as you say (and I doubt it will be – two parents is always better than one, even if they’re both blokes), gay parenting will never have anything but a marginal effect on society. The majority of black families did not have a male guardian thanks to the Great Society. On the other hand, it is not biologically possible for gay parenting to be anything more than a marginal phenomena because homosexuality is not a dominant gene – about 2-3% at most (and probably less).

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 1:50 am
@ John H – I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that same sex marriage will not only lead to a reduction in sodomy, it will also lead to a reduction in the number of homosexuals – the social pressures that used to be placed on gay men to get married will have been totally removed, and the gay gene will be slowly bred out of existence.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 1:53 am
What is male child pedagogy?

He is talking about male role models. Obviously, he would be right if 50%+ of heteros were actually gay without realising. But that’s not the case. About 97% of men are heterosexual, so even if the effects of gay marriage are bad, they will be limited by genetics/biology.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 1:55 am
James
How does you logic go with that? You really care what the government recognises other people doing.

Lloyd
I actually am just saying you can do what you want, but the government doesn’t officially recognise for example the second wife or a same sex partner. I actually see no need for the government to recognise marriage at all. I would prefer that for example if someone had a same sex partner and wanted them to recieve the highest recognition in death or incapacitation then the government would recognise the wishes. Also I would prefer that if someone does not get married then the government should not call them married in the case of common law where a girl friend of some time can divorce her husband (even though he didn’t marry her).

kelly liddle

8 Feb 13 at 2:00 am
Obviously, he would be right if 50%+ of heteros were actually gay without realising.

No that’s not what I was saying or implying.

You’d need to be stupid to induct that bollox from what I wrote.

Children will learn that fatherhood is not important.

Particularly male children.

They will learn it even in the rare circumstance of having a loving father and mother who are married unless those parents home school.

But even that’s against the Law in many European countries.

Can you get these obvious truths thru your thick skull Fisky?

Is it possible?

Probably not as I have repeated it and in various ways and so has Lizzie and you are apparently so remarkably dense that it does not register.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 2:03 am
James
How does you logic go with that? You really care what the government recognises other people doing.

No Kelly.

I care about society and how people live.

I care for the future.

Thinking obviously hurts for you but don’t give up.

The rewards are there for the effort.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 2:05 am
Angry little man.

Like a proto-Bird. Fascinating!

Abu Chowdah

8 Feb 13 at 2:07 am
Angry little man.

Like a proto-Bird. Fascinating!

LOL

You’ve been called out on your bigotry Abu.

I realise for a cosmopolitan facile elitist like yourself that must be difficult to swallow, “little man”.

But do try a little self-examination.

You’re not nearly as intelligent, fair-minded and reasonable as you’d like to think you are.

You’ve clearly demonstrated yourself to be a bigot, in fact.

But man up! Only by facing even your overt deficiencies can you ever hope to overcome them.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 2:15 am
No that’s not what I was saying or implying.

You’d need to be stupid to induct that bollox from what I wrote.

You asserted the effects of gay marriage would be like the black family disaster – I countered by pointing out the genetic impossibility of this.

Children will learn that fatherhood is not important.

Particularly male children.

I’m afraid that horse bolted about 30 years ago. The effects of gay marriage, even if they are bad, will hit a ceiling of about 3%. For single parenting, basically the sky’s the limit, as we’ve seen with black families. Are you proposing to ban single parenting or not? If not, then I don’t know why you are using the proven negative effects of single parenting to argue against two-parent gay adoption. They are not equivalent and the latter is likely better for children than the former.

They will learn it even in the rare circumstance of having a loving father and mother who are married unless those parents home school.

But even that’s against the Law in many European countries.

Can you get these obvious truths thru your thick skull Fisky?

No, they are not obvious at all, particularly as it is hard for me to determine what you are arguing against. The circumstances of a two-parent family are not “rare”, they are the majority of cases (I would prefer this figure to be much higher obviously).

If you are complaining about bans on home-schooling, you should take that up with the European Union – it has nothing to do with gay marriage and I don’t know why it has entered this discussion.

Probably not as I have repeated it and in various ways and so has Lizzie and you are apparently so remarkably dense that it does not register.

You have certainly made a lot of arguments about things you disapprove of, but you have provided no reasons to oppose gay marriage (if you did, you have hidden them amongst the abuse).

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 2:17 am
A bigot now. Abuse from you is a moveable feast, constantly discarding failed options and trying a new ad hom.

Matey, you deliver.

Abu Chowdah

8 Feb 13 at 2:19 am
@ John H – I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that same sex marriage will not only lead to a reduction in sodomy, it will also lead to a reduction in the number of homosexuals – the social pressures that used to be placed on gay men to get married will have been totally removed, and the gay gene will be slowly bred out of existence.

There is no gay gene. A study released some weeks ago stated it was about epigenetic transformations in utero. See

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/

—–
It was those Evol Psych people who tried to argue all sorts of silly reasons why the gay gene persisted. Homosexuality occurs at circa 3-5% of the popn. Compare that to other developmental idiosyncrasies and the rate is comparable. My point is that homosexuality is one of those quirks in development that just happens.

Nonetheless the epigenetic argument is new and so probably wrong. It is plausible that there still exists some genetic predisposition but we haven’t found that possibly because it is scattered across a range of genes instead of one gene. Recent genetic studies have demonstrated this pattern to the point where it becomes absurd, with many genes being implicated in a single particular condition. Contrary to the impression people like Dawkins may convey we still have a very limited understanding of how all this happens. So the reduction in gay men marrying women as a cover could be significant but it will take many generations to see that emerge. Yes gay men did marry as a cover. I remember my mother talking about a friend of hers who had a marriage annulled because after one year the husband still would not have sex.

BTW, it may even increase because of increasing pollution. See:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/12/01/mercury-pollution-can-make-male-birds-homosexual/#.URPHIB2-r_8

John H.

8 Feb 13 at 2:20 am
You asserted the effects of gay marriage would be like the black family disaster – I countered by pointing out the genetic impossibility of this.

Actually no I didn’t but you never did let facts distract you.

Why don’t you just fuck off as debate for you is mindless gainsaying, playing with words and jousting strawmen rather than exchanging honest argument.

You’re a serious waste of time and space.

And I say that not because you hold your views.

I say it because you are disingenuous and facile in argument

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 2:23 am
Thanks John H – great reading for me!

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 2:24 am
Matey, you deliver.

LOL

Abu – matey, you are a complete tosser

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 2:25 am
JamesK, in between insults, you asserted that the effects on society of gay marriage would be:

Male child pedagogy in particular will go the way of black America.

Obviously, given that only 2-3% of children at most would be affected by gay parenting directly, there is no possibility that gay marriage will have any effects remotely like those borne by black families in the US, where over half the households had one guardian.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 2:30 am
Actually no I didn’t but you never did let facts distract you.

Why don’t you just fuck off as debate for you is mindless gainsaying, playing with words and jousting strawmen rather than exchanging honest argument.

You’re a serious waste of time and space.

And I say that not because you hold your views.

I say it because you are disingenuous and facile in argument

JamesK, you really need to do something about this hate problem of yours. You are filled with hate and rage, constantly yelling and shouting and screaming insults at people. What gives? I’m happy to blow it off, but it’s the effect on YOU, your face always contorted with rage as you pound the keyboard, that’s a concern.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 2:33 am
Why don’t you just fuck off

Another valuable contribution from JamesK.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 2:35 am
LOL

Abu – matey, you are a complete tosser

QED

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 2:36 am
Obviously, given that only 2-3% of children at most would be affected by gay parenting directly, there is no possibility that gay marriage will have any effects remotely like those borne by black families in the US, where over half the households had one guardian.

Oh I’m sorry Fisky.

I ascribed dishonest motives to your ‘arguments’ earlier when you are just clearly utterly stupid to a remarkable degree.

Sadly even if it is remarkable slow-wittedness or willful disingenuous obfuscating blather any further attempt at ‘debate’ Fisky-style is pointless

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 2:36 am
Sorry JamesK, did you not assert that the effects of gay marriage would be like the effects of the Great Society on black families? You certainly did appear to do so, and it is that argument I am trying to deal with. On the other hand, if you agree that gay marriage will have a marginal effect on family life (which is a sensible proposition given the numbers), then we can safely put aside the doomsaying about gay marriage.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 2:39 am
Sorry JamesK, did you not assert that the effects of gay marriage would be like the effects of the Great Society on black families?

Don’t worry Fisky.

You just keep writing that mindless drivel.

Be happy.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 2:42 am
JamesK, here are but a few of the predictions you have made on this thread about the effects of allowing 2-3% of people to enter a homosexual marriage.

The black family in the USA over the last 50 years is the canary in the coal mine.

SSM will overwhelmingly emasculates society and disadvantage men in general.

Male child pedagogy in particular will go the way of black America.

A dreadful new norm well been reached and freedom itself will have almost certainly been lost

Hysterical. Absolutely nuts. You should be placed in a secure ward for the entire duration of the Fisk Doctrine.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 2:47 am
I care about society and how people live.

I care for the future.

That is fair enough, but I am curious how government recognising or not recognising a particular activity is going to change society. Unless you actually want the government to be authoritarian and lock people up for having an illegal marriage (noting it is not against the law now) I can’t see what you are trying to achieve.

kelly liddle

8 Feb 13 at 2:47 am
Angry little man.

Like a proto-Bird. Fascinating!

Minus the wit, curiosity, and knowledge of grammar of course.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 2:50 am
Kelly, if a threesome wants to formalise their loving relationship with a group marriage, they cannot do so. It can be alleged that in failing to provide for the recognition of such a marriage, the State is actively discriminating against poly amorous marriage..

Furthermore, where it can be alleged that polyamorous marriage is permissible in a particular culture or religion there is an added dimension in that the State may be accused of discriminating against that cultural or religious group.

My own view is that the equality argument is nonsense. Tradition and institutional stability trumps individual liberty in this instance.

But if “liberalising” the Marriage Act is deemed to be desirable to accommodate same sex couples, then such accommodation should be afforded to other people in their various relationships. To say otherwise is akin to being a little bit pregnant, you either are (being non discriminatory) or are not.

Lloyd

8 Feb 13 at 3:14 am
Lloyd
There are people that say they have a second wife, the state does not stop it, it only does not recognise any second marriage. My personal argument is that the state should recognise no marriage as it is not the states business. The state should recognise next of kin as requested by an individual that is all.

kelly liddle

8 Feb 13 at 3:29 am
Absolutely nuts. You should be placed in a secure ward for the entire duration of the Fisk Doctrine.

Pillory in the town square, please Fisky.

Abu Chowdah

8 Feb 13 at 4:08 am
I am curious.

Has anybody ever attended a wedding between two lawyers?

I would imagine that rather than saying “I do”, each side would spend 3 hours laying down conditions and exceptions and ‘get-out clauses’, and pleading in mitigation.

Up The Workers!

8 Feb 13 at 6:17 am
Is it just me? Or is there a fundamental flaw in John H argument that allowing gay marriage will breed out the gay gene or population. The only problem is that you go on to tell us how a friend of your Mum had their marriage annulled because the gay husband (presumably) never had sex with his wife. Mmmmm. You do know how kids are made don’t you?

In order for your argument to hold water you would need to show that all gay children are the progeny of at least one gay parent, that no gay person will have straight sex for the want of a child and that some gay people won’t get married to the opposite sex to provide a stable home for their children.

In short your argument is stupid. I know some gay people and there is nothing to suggest that they are the progeny of a gay parent. I know gay parents with straight kids and I have two friends in straight families where I am sure the husband is gay, the wife knows but remains in a committed (if somewhat unusual) relationship arrangement for reasons of their own choosing. How they structure their family life and sex life is none of my business.

Having said all of that, I think marriage should remain between a man and a woman, but have no objection to gay people developing the something else that provides all the same benefits and legal rights as marriage. Gayrriage?

John Comnenus

8 Feb 13 at 6:27 am
If the Commonwealth can make a law for marriage between persons of the same sex then surely that means they have the power to redefine words in the Constitution to mean anything they like and if they can do that there is no end to the pssibiliies (they have already been given the power to overcome the constitution by making international agreements requiring them to do things they otherwise could not do). Onwards to the Brave New World.

McHaggis

8 Feb 13 at 7:16 am
But that’s not the case. About 97% of men are heterosexual, so even if the effects of gay marriage are bad, they will be limited by genetics/biology.

So you’re okay with changing a social institution that has lasted thousands of years to placate 3% of the population?

I can’t see any potential for disaster in that scenario.

nilk

8 Feb 13 at 7:37 am
Marriage is a legal contract created to facilitate and order such things as inheritance, property ownership and immigration. What on earth does it matter whether the two consenting adults are of equal sex or not?

The religious part is ceremonial, which you may choose to apply or not.

Rebecca

8 Feb 13 at 7:40 am
I am a Consrvative heterosexual man. I have always had the attitude that I won’t concern myself with what other people do with their genitals. I have no objection to gays getting married. I have read and heard the arguments against it, and they largely rely on slippery slope scenarios, which in general are usually weak arguments that are destroyed when you can disprove one step anywhere along the slope. It seems to me that all of the dire predictions as to what will happen if gay marriage is legalized can be proved true or untrue by observing what actually happens in jurisdictions where it has been legalized. There are enough places in the World now that we can surely come to some conclusions, and it appears that the UK may soon become the biggest laboratory of all. So could someone point out to me where in any of the jurisdictions that have legalized gay marriage up to now there is any sign of the predicted slide down those slippery slopes has occurred? As a fervent climate realist/heretic/anti-warmest, it does strike me that anti gay marriage people do sometimes use the same tactics that warmists do, make dire predictions not based on credible evidence, denigrate their opponents, and ignore observed facts. I find that strange.

Greg

8 Feb 13 at 7:52 am
My own view is that the equality argument is nonsense.

Precisely correct.

It is the weaker of the two positive arguments of which I’m aware for the change to SSM.

Charles Krauthammer also agrees.

It is an exceedingly weak argument.

What’s remarkable with such a mind-numbingly weak argument for such a radical redefinition to the core institution of civilisation is the facile reasoning for it.

And note the foppish dilettante ‘who cares?’ attitude of the twits who promote it: Fisky et al., reduced to smear in lieu of an argument.

So the great men of intellect in all of human history who argued against racism, incest and all forms of bigotry just didn’t see what these fucktard lazy modern genius dilettantes see.

In all of recorded human history until 20 or 30 years ago nobody saw Marriage as negaive discrimination or bigotry.

Fisky, Kelly, Yobbo in the past et al also use the negative argument: It won’t make a difference. So who cares?

Indeed when perfectly obvious scenarios are raised they belittle them.

They have to in order to remain consistent

They can’t know, they don’t actually know but apparently they do: It’s all a storm in a tea cup created by nutters

To their credit at least thus far, they haven’t so far used the other negative argument that any one who disagrees with them is homophobic.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 8:14 am
So could someone point out to me where in any of the jurisdictions that have legalized gay marriage up to now there is any sign of the predicted slide down those slippery slopes has occurred?

Those arguments never pretend immediate negative societal change.

See my comment 8 Feb 13 at 1:14 am

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 8:18 am
Being ‘gay’ is not 3%, it is possibly closer to 50% (or is that just the urban cultural circles I used to move in, or the way things were in ancient Greece or Rome, of what sex-starved Islamic men or frustrated priests do behind closed doors?). As John H recognises it is not a gene, it is more likely an in utero environmental issue for the truly committed, and a social experimentation, acquired tastes and force of circumstance for the other 47% (prisons, anyone?). Lesbians until graduation and surfie boys who bond with their dicks, remember. Cross-culturally and probably ethologically, humans are polymorphous with a high degree of plasticity in their sexual capacities. That however does not alter the biological realities of kinship, its role modelling and its psychological significance in all human cultures. There are many examples of homosexual male bonding being culturally accepted and utlised across a broad swathe of the culture under study. Monkeys use such bonding frequently – it is essentially a demonstration of power relationships.

Legitimating ‘lifestyles’ is fine if it is just about that – let people live as they wish when it comes to sexual relationships. Love has no gender etc.

But marriage is about procreation, and has everything to do with our essential humanity as originating in and from kinship. Always has been: the ‘love’ argument is a smokescreen. You can love in all sorts of relationships but you can only produce children in biological ones (or with biological technology).

Birth certificates and families that throw away one half of biology, with full legal approval, in fact, with ‘gay’ marriage, with complete social encouragement, is why this debate is so fraught.

Fisky, the debate is not about ‘love’ between adults it is about kids and their rights so I am dead set correct and appropriate in bring ‘adoption’ into this arena.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

8 Feb 13 at 8:31 am
Regardless of sexual orientation, everyone deserves the right to choose their marital status. My concern is there will be regulatory outcomes forcing religion to abide.

Shouldn’t the church be able to make their own choice whether to allow same-sex marriages or not? If they choose not to recognise then that is their choice and parishioners will respond in kind.

If not, I fear the legal ramifications plus the continual government push to regulate our choices.

Shwerve

8 Feb 13 at 8:33 am
The ‘love’ / romance argument is fair enough one I think.

It is at least genuine and I am sympathetic.

But there is at least some romance with a civil ceremony for a gay couple.

As Penny Wong has demonstrated the union is socially respected and children are possible for those wealthy enough.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 8:37 am
I don’t see the discrimination or “inequality” in this at all. If you are gay in Australia, as the law stands now you can;
1. Live with and love whoever you like for as long as you want
2. Exchange rings, vows and names ( if you want )
3. Have a ceremony with family and friends declaring your faithfulness and love for each other
4. Refer to your partner as husband or wife etc
So what exactly are gay people currently prevented from doing because the existing , thousands year old definition of marriage hasn’t been changed?

Jim from Brisbane

8 Feb 13 at 9:06 am
“So what exactly are gay people currently prevented from doing because the existing , thousands year old definition of marriage hasn’t been changed?”

They are prevented from signing the marriage register. Also, some people keep pretending that marriage is a monolithic institution unchanged through time. That’s bunk.

“In all of recorded human history until 20 or 30 years ago nobody saw Marriage as negaive discrimination or bigotry.”

Honestly, you are a drooling idiot. What a surprise that people in past cultures saw things differently, as they did about many other social issues.

Pedro

8 Feb 13 at 9:20 am
Statement:

“In all of recorded human history until 20 or 30 years ago nobody saw Marriage as negaive discrimination or bigotry.”

Numbnut Response:

Honestly, you are a drooling idiot. What a surprise that people in past cultures saw things differently, as they did about many other social issues.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 9:24 am
Words matter. “Marriage” has a specific meaning.

Yes, the one you like.

So what exactly are gay people currently prevented from doing because the existing , thousands year old definition of marriage hasn’t been changed?

You are being wilfully ignorant. It’s about property rights and the insecurity of people who think gay marriage cheapens or threatens their own marriages.

.

8 Feb 13 at 9:25 am
See Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, “Bishops and priests… pay attention! The persecution is coming”, and Kathy Shaidle, “Even married gays don’t believe in gay marriage”.

Deadman

8 Feb 13 at 9:35 am
JamesK,”Those arguments never pretend immediate negative societal change”

So how long should we wait before either side of the argument is proven? Implicit in your response is that you cannot currently identify somewhere that has legalised gay marriage heading down the slippery slope.

I would also comment that you say “twits who promote it: Fisky et al., reduced to smear in lieu of an argument” then go on to do exactly the same yourself with “foppish dilettante” and “fucktard lazy modern genius dilettantes”.

Greg

8 Feb 13 at 9:37 am
“Even married ~~gays~~ husbands and wives don’t believe in ~~gay~~ marriage

It’s an age old phenomena.

.

8 Feb 13 at 9:39 am
Well at least no one’s been called a hateful homophobe for having a dissenting opinion to the same-sex “marriage” lobby. Yet.

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 9:40 am
Homophobia is just an extension of misogyny.

.

8 Feb 13 at 9:46 am
Implicit in your response is that you cannot currently identify somewhere that has legalised gay marriage heading down the slippery slope.

That’s simply not true.

It is wishful thinking in your part you conservative heterosexual you.

Please return to the comment I cited and actually read it.

If you disagree with it then please say why.

That is if you genuinely wish to debate.

Please note also that positive arguments for SSM are seemingly completely unnecessary for you.

You are happy to advocate the most radical redefinition/alteration of Marriage as an institution since humans civilised merely on the basis that no downside has been demonstrated.

You are such a conservative hetro Greg.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 9:50 am
Homophobia is just an extension of misogyny

You’re …. well very imaginative dot.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 9:51 am
I think people in general would be more accepting of it if the gay lobby weren’t so ‘in your face’ and condescending when discussing the topic. Some of their arguments are also rather weak that they regularly use such as the ‘equal love, equal marriage’ view.

Andrew

8 Feb 13 at 10:02 am
Andrew is right.

What most people want is equal rights for homosexualists. The whole thing is about Governments recognising SSUs so that gay partners can get inheritance rights, etc.

The easy solution is to pass an SSU Act setting up an equivalent regime to amrriage for homosexuakists, and then change all laws where marriage is mentioned to include the same sex union

Rococo Liberal

8 Feb 13 at 10:27 am
So JamesK please point me to an example of the slippery slope occurring where gay marriage has been legalised.

Greg

8 Feb 13 at 10:44 am
So you’re okay with changing a social institution

Nilk
In my opinion you can’t call the government a social institution because that is what is being discussed, governments involvement in religion.

kelly liddle

8 Feb 13 at 10:49 am
Hurry up and pass the laws to allow gay marriage, so that I can start lobbying politicians to allow me two or more wives.

Richard 2380

8 Feb 13 at 10:49 am
So what exactly are gay people currently prevented from doing because the existing , thousands year old definition of marriage hasn’t been changed?

They are prevented from making their spouse part of their immediate family, which has all sorts of legal implications.

They are also prevented from having their relationship codified in law, as a marriage is after it is registered. That means that anyone at any time can challenge the fact that they are in a relationship. This is impossible with a married couple. All you need to do to prove you are married is point to the marriage register.

This has all sorts of legal implications too, but most prominently in immigration law and estates.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 10:52 am
homophobia

Please, let’s avoid that silly but loaded word which, if it were formed sensibly, would mean “fear or even irrational dread of the same thing”.
If by homophobia you mean misophilomophyly—a dislike of homosexuals or homosexuality—then say so. If, however, you’re suggesting that those who oppose the redefining of marriage to include same-sex unions are somehow psychologically impaired, then that seems an awful lot like attacking a person with a mental impairment or disability. For shame!
This is too similar to the modern, “progressive” suggestion that, for instance, anyone who opposes hordes of non-citizens seeking unlawful entry being granted residency and welfare too easily must do so only because he or she is a xenophobe. I for one have no irrational dread of strangers or guests, and I don’t even dislike foreigners—nay, rather, I should welcome far more lawful immigration than the major parties would allow—, but I do have a well-founded worry that taxpayers’ funds are being wasted and a well-founded concern that incompetent or malfeasant, activist public servants too readily allow dodgy, insufficiently scrutinised, and possibly dangerous people into the community.

Deadman

8 Feb 13 at 10:54 am
Same sex marriage is not in the best interests of children, in fact it’s an abuse of their rights to know and be part of their biological family of origin.
it’s understandable that homosexuals wish to marry and be parents but.

candy

8 Feb 13 at 11:01 am
So JamesK please point me to an example of the slippery slope occurring where gay marriage has been legalised.

So the onus is on those who are against the most radical change of the core institution of civilizational history, according to white male (presumably) conservative heterosexual Greg.

Interesting. Not.

Greg’s facile inverse slippery slope argument was dealt with earlier and was subsequently pointed to twice when Greg repeatedly played the same inane disingenuous dead bat why-dontcha-explain-it-to-me-one-more-time nonsensical nonargument

I still await your rebuttal but it’s clear that you too are not genuine.

As an addendum HeteroConservativeChampGreg, Fisky’s, Abu’s and Yobbo’s ad homs constitute their arguments.

My ad homs in reply are pleasurable supplementaries to genuine argument

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 11:02 am
They are prevented from making their spouse part of their immediate family, which has all sorts of legal implications.

Solved with legally recognised civil union

They are also prevented from having their relationship codified in law, as a marriage is after it is registered.

Solved with legally recognised civil union

That means that anyone at any time can challenge the fact that they are in a relationship.

Solved with legally recognised civil union

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 11:05 am
Same sex marriage is not in the best interests of children

Nor are single parenting or divorce but they are not illegal.

in fact it’s an abuse of their rights to know and be part of their biological family of origin

I’m pretty sure a child doesn’t have that right. If a mother and father divorce, the child doesn’t have the right to insist they get remarried. They don’t even have the right to choose which parent they live with.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 11:08 am
Solved with legally recognised civil union

It’s only “solved” if civil unions, by definition, have all the same rights as a married couple. If you make 2 different legal terms and they aren’t linked, you are going to end up with the same problem down the road if you change one thing and not the other.

But yes, I do agree that these problems are solved by “civil unions” too. Something both major parties in Australia still oppose, btw.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 11:11 am
A biological parent/family of origin is kept out of a child’s life altogether after conception, Yobbo, is my understanding. They be missing half their knowledge of what makes them the way they are.

candy

8 Feb 13 at 11:14 am
I said the following as a joke

Homophobia is just an extension of misogyny

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Homophobia+is+just+an+extension+of+misogyny&oq=Homophobia+is+just+an+extension+of+misogyny&aqs=chrome.0.57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Sweet Jesus. I didn’t realise lefties seriously thought like that.

Anyway, it appears the old salt is telling me: “Set the hook, but don’t rip its bloody head off!”

.

8 Feb 13 at 11:17 am
A biological parent/family of origin is kept out of a child’s life altogether after conception, Yobbo, is my understanding.

That is certainly not true of all gay relationships with kids.

And conversely, it is true of some heterosexual marriages too. Are you saying you wish to also ban sperm or egg donations for hetero couples who can’t conceive naturally?

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 11:28 am
JamesK I have re-read your post at 1:14am that you say addressed the issue I raised, but all I can see is that you say it will take at least a decade for the effects to be visible. So you can’t point to anywhere in the world that the slippery slope has commenced. Do you realise how much you sound like the warmists? Dire predictions but no observable evidence that anything untoward is actually occurring, obfuscating when asked direct questions, ad hom attacks. So according to you, we should wait until 10 years have passed to observe the consequences. This from wikipedia “Since 2000, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden) and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Brazil, Mexico and the United States) allow same-sex couples to marry.” Anything happening in any of those places that you point to?

Greg

8 Feb 13 at 11:38 am
There has been no increase in gay kids from gay couples since 1998!

.

8 Feb 13 at 11:40 am
The obvious compromise here is to grant same sex couples all of the legal ‘benefits’ as heterosexual couples. Give the union a new name and include this as a definition under the marriage act, to which all regulations would also apply.

Why is this so hard?

We already have same sex couples, they already have children, they already jointly own property. All they want is a legal recognition of the joining, for all the reasons already stated on here.

The love, romance part has never been prevented. Same sex couples were always free to hold a public ceremony to openly express that love.

I really dont care if the definition of marriage changes. But other people do, so compromise on the name, and get the majority onside.

This is really is unimportant to most people, they simply dont care as it is not as important as cost of living for eg.

dianeh

8 Feb 13 at 11:53 am
Same-sex relationships simply don’t constitute marriages. Cannot. The argument is simple and straightforward. Marriage is an institution orientated towards the generation, care, custody, and moral education of children. Because it is, it has at least three formal characteristics, it is: a relationship between the sexes; exclusive; and, permanent. That individual marriages fail to produce children, or adequately care or morally educate their child/ren, or end in divorce, and so on, is neither here nor there; if these characteristics weren’t constitutive of marriage they could not be said to even fail occasionally in this or that respect. To deny either the orientation of marriage, and/or its formal characteristics, is to make the institution incoherent and the elements entirely arbitrary.

Of course, people in gay committed relationships should have certain rights available to them that are appropriate to their situation. These could be provided to them quite easily without having to redefine and thus making incoherent the existing institution of marriage.

dover_beach

8 Feb 13 at 11:53 am
“And conversely, it is true of some heterosexual marriages too. Are you saying you wish to also ban sperm or egg donations for hetero couples who can’t conceive naturally?”

Yobbo, no that would be too sad.

But in my opinion the child should meet and know the person who gave him/her life, (ie, donor). It is their right to know.

candy

8 Feb 13 at 12:05 pm
I’m not going to argue with you on that point, candy.

I’m just saying that this is not an argument relating only to gay marriage. In fact, sperm and egg donation is much more common in hetero couples than gay ones.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 12:10 pm
I find the argument that those who are pro gay marriage must show reason for change as opposed to those who are against it needing to justify why they are against it a little specious. The argument for it is that unless you can show a genuine reason not to allow gays to get married, then it is merely discrimination on the basis of sexuality. My point is that if there are adverse consequences of legalising gay marriage, when can we expect to see those consequences occurring in jurisdictions that have legalised it for more than a decade now? I just don’t see that the predictions of such consequences are bearing out anywhere.

Greg

8 Feb 13 at 12:54 pm
Marriage is an institution orientated towards the generation, care, custody, and moral education of children.

No, that is your ideal of marriage.

.

8 Feb 13 at 1:00 pm
So you’re okay with changing a social institution
Nilk
In my opinion you can’t call the government a social institution because that is what is being discussed, governments involvement in religion.

No, Kelly, it is about social engineering by the cultural marxists and they’ve been very, very successful. If they hadn’t been then this issue would never have reared its head and we’d not be discussing it now.

If you disagree then you’re a h8r and need to be burned at the stake. You’re a homophobe, bigot, whatever.

First the gay activists wanted their sexual behaviour legitimised. Okay, we can tick that one off.

Then they wanted it normalised. Okay, going by the television shows and the magazines, we can tick that off, too.

As is pointed out ad nauseum here at the Cat, words do matter, so ‘marriage’ (which is well on the way to being delegitimised and is already debased and not something I’d recommend anyone to attempt these days) must now be redefined.

The strongest building block in the history of man has always been the nuclear family of a married father and mother with offspring. Father gets to have confidence that the offspring is his and so he’ll feel motivated to protect and provide.

Mother gets the protection and provisions of the father’s involvement, and offspring is provided with a stable environment.

That’s how I see it, whether you want to put a religious spin on it or not.

Now, however, thanks to no-fault divorce, excessive welfare payments that encourage single mother-hood and punitive child support payments for men, there is no great incentive to marry.

And it’s the activists that drive it, the serial victims like Rodney Croome who never, ever, ever shut up about how hard done by they are, how oppressed they are.

He’s so oppressed he gets his head on the tv whenever there’s any sort of comment required, and he’s been making a living out of it for years.

nilk

8 Feb 13 at 1:03 pm
The reasons to support gay marriage is simple. Even though it is not an important issue in the scheme of things, there is no reason for the State to discriminate between different unions. It is a good principle that the State should treat people equally unless doing otherwise is justified. Homosexuality is now legal and accepted and permanent homosexual relationships are not shameful or scandleous as they were just a few decades ago. Homosexuals are having children.

A second good reason is that permanent relationships have positive welfare effects.

If you say that gays should have civil unions that are marriage in all but name then I ask why the State should apply one name to one set of civil unions and a different name to the other set. There is just no sense in it and you are at the same time saying that the permanent loving relationships of gays are treated as something else by the State.

If you say that we should not overturn this tradition then I ask why this tradition is so special that it is immutable when other traditions are not.

If you say that gay marriage is going to harm the insitution of marriage then you need to articulate the way in which marriate will be harmed.

Pedro

8 Feb 13 at 1:16 pm
If you say that gays should have civil unions that are marriage in all but name then I ask why the State should apply one name to one set of civil unions and a different name to the other set. There is just no sense in it and you are at the same time saying that the permanent loving relationships of gays are treated as something else by the State.

You don’t think different concepts or commitments should not be given different names?

Andrew

8 Feb 13 at 1:23 pm
You don’t think different concepts or commitments should not be given different names?

That ultimately is what this boils down to. Pro marriage gays want the name marriage rather than civil unions, conservatives willing to concede a property rights argument don’t want to give them that.

Either option offends the other side.

Privatising marriage would end such a silly debate.

.

8 Feb 13 at 1:27 pm
The purpose is to deny the Left the psychological boost they desperately seek by passing gay marriage in the face of furious and impotent conservative opposition.

And so yet another faltering linchpin of society is given a final shove being redefined out of meaningful existence – and for what? According to Fisky in order to spit in the eye of the Labour Party. Nice one Fisk.

As one UK conservative MP worthy of the name stated “We are in Alice in Wonderland territory here”. So called “conservatives” who collaborate with the left to shoehorn everyone and everything into the equality cult simply highlight how decadent western societies have become.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 1:28 pm
There is marriage or smarriage. They are different. No amount of debate can change this.

stackja

8 Feb 13 at 1:32 pm
That ultimately is what this boils down to. Pro marriage gays want the name marriage rather than civil unions, conservatives willing to concede a property rights argument don’t want to give them that.

Either option offends the other side.

Privatising marriage would end such a silly debate.

By privatising do you mean that institutions other than the state can call their ‘committed relationships’ whatever they want and those relationships under law are all seen as civil unions?

I agree that it would end a lot of the meaningless debate on this topic.

Andrew

8 Feb 13 at 1:39 pm
“So called “conservatives” who collaborate with the left to shoehorn everyone and everything into the equality cult simply highlight how decadent western societies have become.”

You probably should brush up on the history of classical liberalism if that’s how you think about “equality before the law”.

Pedro

8 Feb 13 at 1:58 pm
By privatising do you mean that institutions other than the state can call their ‘committed relationships’ whatever they want and those relationships under law are all seen as civil unions?

That would be a perfectly acceptable solution for me personally.

The real crux of the matter is that married couples are recognised by the state in a manner over and above non-married couples.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 2:04 pm
“You don’t think different concepts or commitments should not be given different names?”

I can’t see how it’s a different concept and I think the blighters want to be able to give the same commitment.

Pedro

8 Feb 13 at 2:04 pm
I can’t see how it’s a different concept and I think the blighters want to be able to give the same commitment.

Well one commitment is between a man and a woman who can pro-create and the other is between two people of the same gender, who can not pro-create. Words that have different meanings and consequences generally have different words.

To be frank, I really don’t care if gays call their committed relationship ‘ooga booga’ or marriage. I don’t think it really changes society.

Andrew

8 Feb 13 at 2:10 pm
“Well one commitment is between a man and a woman who can pro-create and the other is between two people of the same gender, who can not pro-create.”

The difference is not in the commitment, it’s in the participants. And you’ll notice that some gays seem to be able to get pregnant and that not all straight couples are able to do that.

Pedro

8 Feb 13 at 2:15 pm
Lesbians, in particular, are perfectly capable of procreating. And contrary to the apparent fears of many of the posters here, would be the majority of gay people who actually got married if it was legal.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 2:22 pm
Lesbians, in particular, are perfectly capable of procreating.

I’ve watched a fair bet of lez on lez action in my time and aside from a bit of squirting, I’ve never seen any reproductive fluid. Explain how?

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 2:25 pm
It’s only “solved” if civil unions, by definition, have all the same rights as a married couple.

Wikipedia:Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia

In all Australian states and territories, cohabiting same-sex couples are recognised as de facto couples, and have the same rights as cohabiting heterosexual couples under state law. From 1 March 2009 a new section in the Family Law Act 1975 has limited jurisdiction over de facto relationships that have a geographical connection, with a participating state

Since December 2008, cohabitating (“de facto”) same-sex couples have access to the same federal rights that cohabitating opposite-sex couples have. In more than 100 areas of law, “de facto partner” is now defined to include both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The rights extended to same-sex couples include, among others: joint social security and veterans’ entitlements, employment entitlements, superannuation, workers’ compensation, joint access to the Medicare Safety Net, hospital visitation, immigration, inheritance rights, and the ability to file a joint tax return and gain the same tax rebates as married couples.[24]

The reforms were chiefly adopted through two Acts of Parliament introduced by the Rudd Labor Government: the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Act 2008 which received assent on 4 December 2008 and the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Act 2008 which received assent on 9 December 2008.[25][26]

These “omnibus” pieces of legislation amended a wide variety of existing laws to include same-sex couples. They received support not only from the governing Australian Labor Party, but also from the opposition Liberal Party, the Australian Greens and independent members.

Australia does not outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation at the federal level.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 2:29 pm
The only way homosexuals can procreate is if they go against nature and embrace heterosexuality. This is against the natural order of their DNA.

I find it positively disgusting and something that true homosexuals should be outraged about.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 2:32 pm
You probably should brush up on the history of classical liberalism if that’s how you think about “equality before the law”.

You can rationalise your stance in this way if you like Pedro.

Gays can marry just like anyone else – to a member of the opposite sex.

In the UK civil unions give gays in permanent relationships equal entitlements re inheritance etc.

No – the kind of equality gays are asking for is for society to say that heterosexual marital unions are no different from same sex unions. That is a different matter altogether and you know it.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 2:35 pm
there is no reason for the State to discriminate between different unions

Both the state and the people discriminate between different unions ALL THE TIME. That’s why we have different names for different relationships – so we know what those relationships are.

A homosexual relationship cannot be the same as a married relationship because there is only one sex involved. The relationship, the consequences, the challeges, the rewards and the culture are all different.

I wonder why some people are so keen to extend the meaning of certain words? Generally speaking, the extention tends to dilute the original meaning and doesn’t improve our communication at all. Think of misogyny, racist, homophobe, family, marriage, sustainability.

Ellen of Tasmania

8 Feb 13 at 2:38 pm
“No – the kind of equality gays are asking for is for society to say that heterosexual marital unions are no different from same sex unions. That is a different matter altogether and you know it.”

Yes, that is exactly what they want. I can’t see how that’s a different matter altogether, it’s the point of the debate, which is directed to changing the nature of a legal institution for the purpose of removing a pointless discrimination. The general nature of the claim is that gays will somehow ruin it for us, but I just don’t see how.

IT, there are plenty of married couples with children of which either one or both is not the parent.

Pedro

8 Feb 13 at 2:44 pm
The only way homosexuals can procreate is if they go against nature and embrace heterosexuality. This is against the natural order of their DNA.

I find it positively disgusting and something that true homosexuals should be outraged about.

I find it disgusting that a woman who would throw up at the thought of having sex with a man nevertheless demands the fruits of such love for herself. And the same goes for men in that situation.

But no – such is the hubris of this secular age – we will bend nature’s rules and the natural and social order any which way to serve our own ends and dare anyone to say otherwise.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 2:44 pm
Yes, that is exactly what they want. I can’t see how that’s a different matter altogether, it’s the point of the debate, which is directed to changing the nature of a legal institution for the purpose of removing a pointless discrimination. The general nature of the claim is that gays will somehow ruin it for us, but I just don’t see how.

I find it distressing to acknowledge that the social engineers of the left have won a resounding victory in the culture war – such as people on our side of the debate can no longer discriminate because discrimination has now be made a pejorative term.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 2:49 pm
I find it disgusting that a woman who would throw up at the thought of having sex with a man nevertheless demands the fruits of such love for herself

You mean like a hetero women with an infertile husband who needs a sperm donor? Maybe we should force such women to physically have sex with the donor?

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 2:55 pm
JamesK

In all Australian states and territories, cohabiting same-sex couples are recognised as de facto couples, and have the same rights as cohabiting heterosexual couples under state law.

The rights of married couples are different to de facto couples James. This is the entire point.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 2:56 pm
That’s nonsense, this is a very liberal debate. A law exists. In the absense of the law I wouldn’t give a shit. But seeing that the law exists, people should be treated equally by it. I’m not in favour of laws prohibiting discrimination even though I think discrimination if awful.

Pedro

8 Feb 13 at 2:56 pm
As an addendum HeteroConservativeChampGreg, Fisky’s, Abu’s and Yobbo’s ad homs constitute their arguments.

*Snort*! You really have some nerve to be calling out other people on ad hom, JamesK.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 2:57 pm
I’ve watched a fair bet of lez on lez action in my time and aside from a bit of squirting, I’ve never seen any reproductive fluid. Explain how?

In the exact same way as a naturally infertile heterosexual couple would do it. With the aid of medicine. You do realise that hetero couples who cannot conceive naturally use sperm and egg donations, in vitro fertilisation, and surrogate mothers all the time, right?

Do you think this should also be banned?

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 2:59 pm
The Muon Trap is working, Dr Yobbo Venkman. Well done Dr Fisky Spengler.

“Yes sir, it’s true, this man has no penis”

.

8 Feb 13 at 3:00 pm
Do you think this should also be banned?

No. At least the hetero couple are digging in the right spot.

The homo couple might as well rub sticks together and practise alchemy.

Homosexuals have been chosen by nature not to reproduce. They have many fine other qualities, but child rearing ain’t one. They need to respect nature and science.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 3:08 pm
Homosexuals have been chosen by nature not to reproduce. They have many fine other qualities, but child rearing ain’t one. They need to respect nature and science.

Saying this about any group of people you don’t particularly like is riddled with moral hazard

I can think of a lot of hetero couples in Australia who would make worse parents than Penny Wong and Sophie Allouache.

It’s not really up to us to decide who is worthy of reproducing and who isn’t. That’s why we don’t castrate criminals or black people any more.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 3:12 pm
Saying this about any group of people you don’t particularly like is riddled with moral hazard

Then my plan to neuter leftists will be a hard sell.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 3:16 pm
They need to respect nature and science.

Perhaps you should tell that to some Indian national park rangers who shoot a Leopard or a Tiger to save their own lives…

“You fool Sir…nature intended on you being mauled to death…you will feed this old creature with six months to live but you won’t taste good…and you must respect nature and science!”

.

8 Feb 13 at 3:16 pm
The homo couple might as well rub sticks together and practise alchemy.

Or use a turkey baster

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 3:16 pm
Infidel sounds like Jensen out of Network.

Yobbo as Mr Beale.

.

8 Feb 13 at 3:18 pm
Still waiting for someone to point out actual evidence of the effect of legalising gay marriage on society rather than computer modelling, sorry, speculation.

Greg

8 Feb 13 at 3:22 pm
*Snort*! You really have some nerve to be calling out other people on ad hom, JamesK.

My sliming is only ever a like response.

Moreover they are in addition to actual rational argument, counter-argument and/or rebuttal.

With you Fisky sliming is the core feature of your ‘argument’.

As I’ve observed eleswhere you ‘argue’ like a leftist.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 3:22 pm
Perhaps you should tell that to some Indian national park rangers who shoot a Leopard or a Tiger to save their own lives…

If they are trying to procreate with a leopard or tiger they’ll need more than a rifle. I’d start with flowers.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 3:22 pm
It’s been legalised in about a dozen countries already and armageddon is yet to occur, so I think it is safe to say it hasn’t had all that great an effect.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 3:23 pm
Homosexuals have been chosen by nature not to reproduce.

If this was true, they wouldn’t exist.

Dawkins has some interesting theories on how the gene for homosexuality has persisted. My favourite: (his terms) The “Sneaky Fucker” Theory.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 3:28 pm
My sliming is only ever a like response.

Moreover they are in addition to actual rational argument, counter-argument and/or rebuttal.

With you Fisky sliming is the core feature of your ‘argument’.

As I’ve observed eleswhere you ‘argue’ like a leftist.

JamesK, you were the first to resort to abuse on this thread, as you are on every thread. That is because you are a perennially angry person who needs medical assistance.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 3:39 pm
Still waiting for someone to point out actual evidence of the effect of legalising gay marriage on society rather than computer modelling, sorry, speculation

The lazy dilettante conservative heterosexual waits and waits whilst doggedly and desperately refusing to respond to my comment which answers his disingenuous pleadings.

Fancy that.

Christian Adoption agencies no longer function in states with SSM as they will then be deemed to discriminate illegally in favouring heterosexual couples which their religious precepts correctly dictate.

Moreover a British judge last year found that Christian couples who believe that homosexual acts amount to sin as their religion teaches are banned from state adoption.

Presumably it won’t be long with Cameron where they won’t be able to adopt from Christian agencies (although I’m no even sure they can now)

In Spain there is no longer a ‘Mother’ or ‘Father’ on the birth certificates.

Only Progenitor A and Progenitor B

The same will shortly be true in France.

In America the tragedy of the black American family is rooted in the absence of fatherhood.

The great New York Democrat Senator and public intellectual Daniel patrick Moynihan predicted all of this in the late 60′s.

All he feared and worse has eventuated.

He wasn’t listened to because inane white liberal fucktards who pretended to be conservative Dems said facile shit like show me where the this breakdown of family values is destroying society.

Just like tired dishonest conservative heterosexual Greg now.

A society that does not honour the family with the ideal of a loving father and mother is guaranteeing adverse societal outcomes.

It will take some time- perhaps a decade or more to radically change society and disenfranchise and belittle responsible fatherhood – but then the NHS didn’t take too long to rot the soul of the Brits.

20%+ of Russians still love Uncle Joe Stalin

Single mums voted for Obummer in record numbers.

The know who der Daddy is.

That is not to say that on an individual basis single parents and same sex parents who are loving are not utterly brilliant but the ideal is clear and that has been enshrined in Marriage from time immemorial.

Absolute heterosexual conservative Greg isn’t at all concerned.

Fancy that.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 3:58 pm
JamesK, you were the first to resort to abuse on this thread, as you are on every thread. That is because you are a perennially angry person who needs medical assistance.

LOL

So Fisky you are innocent?

I really don’t fink so

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 4:00 pm
“JamesK, you were the first to resort to abuse on this thread, as you are on every thread. That is because you are a perennially angry person who needs medical assistance.”

You forgot “moron”. Just look at the high quality arguments here http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/02/07/debate-marriage-here/comment-page-4/#comment-722657
None of which address the question of why gay marraige would be bad.

Pedro

8 Feb 13 at 4:03 pm
I also think it’s preferable, all other things being equal, that kids should have 1 male and 1 female parent. Having a role model of both sexes is a good thing.

But that is not always possible. And all other things are not always equal.

All things being equal, I am pretty sure that having 2 parents of the same sex is better than having only 1 parent. And it’s not close.

And it’s not like a kid with 2 gay parents would be completely devoid of any role models of the opposite sex either. They would still have grandfathers, uncles, teachers etc. Same as any kid from a single-parent household today.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 4:13 pm
Christian Adoption agencies no longer function in states with SSM as they will then be deemed to discriminate illegally in favouring heterosexual couples which their religious precepts correctly dictate.

Moreover a British judge last year found that Christian couples who believe that homosexual acts amount to sin as their religion teaches are banned from state adoption.

Gay marriage is not law in Britain, so these examples of anti-Christian bias must be coming from somewhere else.

In America the tragedy of the black American family is rooted in the absence of fatherhood.

The great New York Democrat Senator and public intellectual Daniel patrick Moynihan predicted all of this in the late 60′s.

All he feared and worse has eventuated.

He wasn’t listened to because inane white liberal fucktards who pretended to be conservative Dems said facile shit like show me where the this breakdown of family values is destroying society.

The breakdown of family values in the US (which is now only gradually being reversed) is real, but has nothing to do with gay marriage. Gay marriage will make practically no difference to the number of fatherless households. It’s not biologically possible unless the “gay gene” (or whatever it is) becomes more widespread. In fact, it will probably become less so over time because of the absence of social pressures on homosexuals to enter heterosexual marriage.

Other than that, none of the things you are complaining about is relevant to the topic of gay marriage.

A society that does not honour the family with the ideal of a loving father and mother is guaranteeing adverse societal outcomes.

I agree it is the ideal, but if you are not proposing a ban on single parenting, then your complaints about gay marriage are pointless. The breakdown in the family structure has been caused by the welfare state, by and large, and this preceded gay marriage by nearly two generations. Gay parenting will probably guarantee superior outcomes to single parenting, and if the latter is not going to be banned, then there is no justification for banning the former.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 4:18 pm
Yobbo, one of the problems here is the people who argue that policy should be set for their idea of perfection when life serves up reality.

Pedro

8 Feb 13 at 4:20 pm
No, that is your ideal of marriage.

dot, is no more an ‘ideal’ than saying that businesses are orientated towards profit.

Even though it is not an important issue in the scheme of things, there is no reason for the State to discriminate between different unions.[emphasis my own]

Pedro, given that you’ve admitted they are different unions, they just might be justifications for doing just this.

A second good reason is that permanent relationships have positive welfare effects.

If you say that gays should have civil unions that are marriage in all

But given that you’ve admitted to be different unions and that this can be rationally argued then the difference is not merely semantics. But anyway, all that the purported positive welfare get you is legal recognition, not legal recognition as marriages.

If you say that gay marriage is going to harm the insitution of marriage then you need to articulate the way in which marriate will be harmed.

By making the institution incoherent. If the relationship is not orientated towards the generation, care and custody of children, and you could argue this here in relation to SSR because these relationships are in and of themselves non-generative rather than particular marriages which might by choice or circumstance fail to produce a child, then to deny the that marriage is a relationship between the sexes is to deny that it is orientated towards children, and to do this also then undermines the characteristics of permanence and exclusivity.

You mean like a hetero women with an infertile husband who needs a sperm donor?

Yobbo, the difference here is that the above couple fail to generate children because of some physical abnormality. However, in relation to your two lesbians there is no failure; they don’t require any physical abnormality involving their genitalia in order to fail to procreate. They simply cannot procreate together and this is true of them as it is of all lesbian couples.

Or use a turkey baster

Fisky, in other words, all lesbians couples something outside of their existing relationship, not just a turkey baster but a fertile man. They are like a business that requires the revenues of a profit-making enterprise to make a profit themselves and yet still what to pretend that they are themselves a profit-making enterprise.

dover_beach

8 Feb 13 at 4:22 pm
To their credit at least thus far, they haven’t so far used the other negative argument that any one who disagrees with them is homophobic.

Or “bigot”, hey matey?

Abu Chowdah

8 Feb 13 at 4:22 pm
Yobbo, one of the problems here is the people who argue that policy should be set for their idea of perfection when life serves up reality.

But they are not arguing that at all. No one on this thread has called for single parenting to be banned, even though it consistently brings the worst social outcomes. Why is that?

On the broader point, I do think that the incentives in society should guide people towards the good (stable, heterosexual marriage), but that doesn’t mean that the second best option (gay marriage) should be banned.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 4:22 pm
None of which address the question of why gay marraige would be bad

Actually all of it quite clearly does.

And I return to the same old rubicon: the onus is actually on the proponents to prove no harm not the other way around.

So spare me your condescension, Pedro and provide an argument for the most radical change in the core institution of civilisation’s 3-4 thousand years of recorded history.

Hint: There are only two positive ones so the task shouldn’t be overly difficult even for a tulip like you. although sadly for you one is easily rebutted and the other easily counter-argued even in the event they were properly argued which you clearly ain’t capable of doing.

But entertain us. Give it a red hot go!

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 4:25 pm
Yobbo, the difference here is that the above couple fail to generate children because of some physical abnormality. However, in relation to your two lesbians there is no failure; they don’t require any physical abnormality involving their genitalia in order to fail to procreate. They simply cannot procreate together and this is true of them as it is of all lesbian couples.

I know heterosexual married couples who are empty-nesters by choice. They got married because they love each other and sought an institution through which to express and legitimise their life-long commitment, even though they never intended to have children. A gay couple is no different to this hypothetical example, and if it is fine for the former to marry, it is fine for the latter.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 4:26 pm
So spare me your condescension, Pedro and provide an argument for the most radical change in the core institution of civilisation’s 3-4 thousand years of recorded history.

I already gave you several arguments – it’s good for gays, good for society, leads to less sodomy and fewer STDs. People are happier and healthier in long-term relationships and gays are no exception. I can’t think of a single disadvantage to gay marriage.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 4:29 pm
But they are not arguing that at all. No one on this thread has called for single parenting to be banned, even though it consistently brings the worst social outcomes. Why is that?

I would ban single women from procuring a child through IVF and adoption. They are usually close to 40 years of age when they try these measures and most single women of that age are off their rockers. Better a young gay couple than an old boiler looking for a project.

Okay, i think I’ve offended enough people here. Back to the open thread.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 4:31 pm
Actually all of it quite clearly does.

You have gone on about the decline of the black family, the NHS, the Great Society, and so on, but nothing about gay marriage.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 4:31 pm
It’s not really up to us to decide who is worthy of reproducing and who isn’t.

People who don’t want to have sex with the opposite sex need to think through the ramifications of that preference. It’s not a question of who is worthy to reproduce. These days people just don’t want to accept that their choices/preferences have consequences. It’s not really all that complicated.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 4:31 pm
A homohobe could conceivably be an anti-Christian bigot but an anti-Christian bigot need not be a honophobe Chowdah, matey boy

But I salute you on not being a homophobe Abu.

Well done!

Have a Chivas and big fat cigar

Lotsa bigots enjoy the finer things in life whilst moronically believing themselves pure of heart.

What about you Abu?

Has the penny finally dropped?

LOL

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 4:31 pm
leads to less sodomy and fewer STDs.

a piece of paper with the word “marriage” stamped on is guaranteed to do all that becuase defacto gay couples screw around?

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 4:32 pm
I would ban single women from procuring a child through IVF and adoption. They are usually close to 40 years of age when they try these measures and most single women of that age are off their rockers. Better a young gay couple than an old boiler looking for a project.

I couldn’t agree more. But JamesK doesn’t want to ban single parenting, even though he does want to ban gay parenting. Why?

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 4:32 pm
You have gone on about the decline of the black family, the NHS, the Great Society, and so on, but nothing about gay marriage.

Truly your stupidity knows no bounds Fisky

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 4:33 pm
I would ban single women from procuring a child through IVF and adoption. They are usually close to 40 years of age when they try these measures and most single women of that age are off their rockers. Better a young gay couple than an old boiler looking for a project.

Sadly a fair bit of truth in that

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 4:34 pm
I can’t think of a single disadvantage to gay marriage.

Have you ever tried securing a wedding venue? It’s a nightmare and with the added pressure of the flamboyant community taking venues I can only see this creating a rift between the two camps.

Also, every successful wedding reception is orchestrated by a homosexual man. Now they will all be busy attending their friends weddings. Hetero weddings will all be debacles.

There will be packs of angry women looking to bash gays if this takes hold.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 4:35 pm
Yobbo, the difference here is that the above couple fail to generate children because of some physical abnormality. However, in relation to your two lesbians there is no failure; they don’t require any physical abnormality involving their genitalia in order to fail to procreate. They simply cannot procreate together and this is true of them as it is of all lesbian couples.

So your argument is that gay people having children is contrary to the natural order?

Why have medicine at all then? Just let people die, it’s natural.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 4:35 pm
Chivas is a blend. No thanks, matey. (You’re from Ireland aren’t you? No wonder you drink shit whiskey).

By the way, it’s good you can give yourself a “LOL” when you post your non witty screeds. Nobody else will.

Here matey, I’ll chuck you this one, that someone already sucked on, but it’s still useable:

LOL!

Abu Chowdah

8 Feb 13 at 4:38 pm
Why have medicine at all then? Just let people die, it’s natural.

That’s the NHS’s slogan.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 4:39 pm
a piece of paper with the word “marriage” stamped on is guaranteed to do all that becuase defacto gay couples screw around?

It is certainly harder to break a marriage, or the consequences are worse, yes. But encouraging gays to enter stable relationships is a good thing, and should be legitimised by society where possible.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 4:39 pm
But encouraging gays to enter stable relationships

You make it sound like herding sheep. It also has that ring of ‘I know what’s best for them’ to it. So we learn today that defacto relationships are bad becuase they do not provide for a long-lasting stable commitment.

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 4:42 pm
I am pretty sure that single women are already effectively banned from adoption in western countries, since there are far more married couples looking to adopt than there are babies available for adoption, and married couples will always receive preference.

In Australia in 2008-2009, there were a total of 68 Australian-born children in the entirety of Australia who were adopted by people unknown to the parents (a further 104 “known-child” adoptions which are typically cases where a child is adopted by an extended family member, step-parent or godparent).

If you are talking about adopting babies from developing countries though, does anyone here honestly believe that a baby from a Chinese orphanage is better off staying there rather than being adopted by a single mum in Sweden or a couple of homos in California?

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 4:46 pm
You make it sound like herding sheep. It also has that ring of ‘I know what’s best for them’ to it.

Sorry if it came across that way, but if you, like me, believe that people are better off in stable long-term relationships, then society has every interest in making it easier for such relationships to be formed.

So we learn today that defacto relationships are bad becuase they do not provide for a long-lasting stable commitment.

No, I have been following the arguments of conservatives for long enough to know that marriage is superior to defacto relationships. I agree, and gays are no exception to this rule.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 4:47 pm
Chivas is a blend. No thanks, matey. (You’re from Ireland aren’t you? No wonder you drink shit whiskey).

By the way, it’s good you can give yourself a “LOL” when you post your non witty screeds. Nobody else will.

Here matey, I’ll chuck you this one, that someone already sucked on, but it’s still useable:

LOL!

Oh dear Abu matey!

Decided on the infantile bigot look?

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 4:55 pm
Yobbo, by definition homosexuals are unable to produce offspring through normal sexual intercourse. It isn’t a great stretch of logic to infer that child rearing by people in same sex marriages is untried territory, at a societal level.

I have no doubt it has occurred at an individual level.

But public policy cannot be framed by specific isolated instances, which are at present necessarily few in number.

While I prefer the current status quo, I think that an expansion of the Marriage Act is an inevitability and will eventually go beyond the current limited debate on same sex marriage to embrace polyamorous relationships, fixed term marriage contracts etc. As human liberties are extended even greater liberties are sought.

It might be cold comfort for those gays in the present, but societal change occurs over generations. For those of us raised in a less secular culture and with a different set of values the term marriage means something quite specific and I’d hazard that their numbers are great than those a timely pursue change. I think most people see the whole equality angle as a back door (no pun intended) means to attain that which the ballot box will not currently provide. The same sex marriage lobby risks a backlash pursing this strategy.

Bottom line: Put the arguments fairly and wait for your moment. That’s called democracy.

Lloyd

8 Feb 13 at 4:56 pm
Pursuing

Lloyd

8 Feb 13 at 4:58 pm
So we learn today that defacto relationships are bad becuase they do not provide for a long-lasting stable commitment.

There is literature which supports that contention.

John H.

8 Feb 13 at 5:01 pm
There is literature which supports that contention. Yes and I’m sure there’s literature out there that opposes the contention.

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 5:04 pm
The overwhelming majority of heterosexuals in Australia support gay marriage. A super-majority. They evidently don’t believe that gay marriage will harm their relationship in any way. A minority oppose gay marriage for various reasons, but gay marriage will make no difference to their relationship either. They are hardly likely to file for divorce because two blokes are tying the knot.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 5:05 pm
Oh dear Abu matey!

Decided on the infantile bigot look?

Did my use of the terms matey and infantile sting you?

Good, matey. That was the intention.

Abu Chowdah

8 Feb 13 at 5:06 pm
There is literature which supports that contention. Yes and I’m sure there’s literature out there that opposes the contention.

I’m sorry Gab, I thought that this point would be uncontroversial for a Catholic. Are you seriously trying to argue that de facto relationships are not inferior to marriage?

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 5:07 pm
I’m saying a piece of paper will not guarantee faithfulness. I thought this was known.

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 5:08 pm
Obviously marriage is not a piece of paper. I’m sorry if your marriage is, but none of the marriages I am familiar with are simply a piece of paper; the legal and social obligations are serious.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 5:10 pm
I’m sorry Gab, I thought that this point would be uncontroversial for a Catholic. Are you seriously trying to argue that de facto relationships are not inferior to marriage?

There is a chicken and egg issue there because those who choose de facto may have subtle doubts about the strength of the relationship. We have been sold too much bollocks by Hollywood about the permanence of romantic love. People have been encouraged too often to think that if it doesn’t feel good it aint good. “Love” is as much about commitment as feelings. There are even neuro studies indicating the experience of romantic love has neurological mirrors similiar to addiction. And IIRC, there are\were some cultures that regarded romantic love as a psycho-pathology which isn’t so surprising given the way some people behave in such states.

John H.

8 Feb 13 at 5:16 pm
Oh please. Do stop the theatrics, Fisk. It has been the view of many who don’t want to get married and prefer just to be in a committed relationship. Been happening for yonks. The act of marriage has never guaranteed stability. The people within that marriage make a conscious decision to be committed to that other person, or not. Same goes for a defacto relationship. I’ve seen it first hand for 20 years.

What you’re arguing is similar to saying a Stop sign physically forces people to stop. No, people decide that they will stop.

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 5:17 pm
This is astonishing. I didn’t think I would need to explain the difference in committment implied by marriage to a dedicated theist, but apparently I do.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 5:20 pm
The overwhelming majority of heterosexuals in Australia support gay marriage. A super-majority.

I’d contend they support it but don’t actually think it’s a serious issue.

Kind of like holding a funeral for your child’s goldfish only less important.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 5:25 pm
~~KONY 2012~~ SERGE AND BRUCE 2013.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 5:26 pm
” there is no reason for the State to discriminate between different unions.[emphasis my own]”

Dover, I hope that’s not you’re entry for the the world gotcha championship.

Pedro

8 Feb 13 at 5:29 pm
This is astonishing. I didn’t think i would need to explain logic and human motivation to an intelligent man.

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 5:30 pm
It’s complicated but I agree with Fisk. A marriage is a contract. Contracts are like laws, they promote co-operative behavior, a desire to stay the course, to formally acknowledge one’s obligations to another or society is a reinforcer of behavior. If it isn’t then the rule of law is a farce.

Past registered marriages tended to have a much longer median duration than past de facto relationships (14 years compared with 2 years). In considering the apparently brief duration of de facto relationships, it should be kept in mind that this median is only for those relationships that have ended – a greater number have gone on to become a registered marriage or remain as long-term partnerships. In addition, where de facto relationships are being used by couples as a step before marriage, those that end before marriage may reduce the number of marriages that would otherwise end in divorce within a short period.

John H.

8 Feb 13 at 5:32 pm
I didn’t think i would need to explain logic and human motivation to an intelligent man.

.

You wouldn’t.

But that’s not the situation, you’re in.

Is it?

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 5:32 pm
I’d contend they support it but don’t actually think it’s a serious issue.

It’s more accurate to say that it’s only a serious issue for a tiny minority of people. Specifically, gay people who want to get married.

It’s kind of like saying that Lou Gehrig’s Disease isn’t a serious issue. Unless you have it, of course.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 5:32 pm
Why have medicine at all then? Just let people die, it’s natural.

The historic purpose of medicine is to heal, promote wellbeing, support failing bodily systems and alleviate human suffering. Only recently has it been harnessed as a tool for social engineering.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 5:34 pm
but that doesn’t mean that the second best option (gay marriage) should be banned.

Fisky, no one has ‘banned’ two men from living together in Glebe.

I know heterosexual married couples who are empty-nesters by choice.

And I know people that have a business with no intention of turning a profit. None of which counts against the fact that business is orientated towards making profits. You might say that they haven’t banned this operation. Quite, but, if we had a institution that was not orientated towards turning a profit and never could, we would have grounds for denying it was a business and not some sort of other institution, say a not-for-profit. None of this bans either type, or involves any inequality, and given the differences, is likely to in fact lead to more coherence when thinking about the two as types.

So your argument is that gay people having children is contrary to the natural order?

Yobbo, no, my argument is in fact the simple observation that MM and FF cannot have children. This isn’t rocket science here.

Why have medicine at all then?

No, because the two are not like cases. It is perfectly natural/ rational for people to want to heal abnormalities, injuries, and so on. But FF and MM couples do not suffer any abnormalities or injuries that prevent them from procreating; these relationships are in and of themselves, non-procreative.

General comment:
Now, as I said above, the fact that SSR cannot be marriages doesn’t mean that we have no reason to recognize such relationships as a matter of justice and give to them what is appropriate to their circumstances. Given that the latter doesn’t require redefining the former, I cannot understand the strategy of the gay ‘marriage’ movement. Even the French, including many gays and lesbians, seem to understand this.

dover_beach

8 Feb 13 at 5:34 pm
So Sophie and Penny are in dire straits because they don’t have that special piece of paper that guarantees they will never separate. I can see now why gays are so hell-bent to get married.

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 5:35 pm
Having said that, perhaps the anti-family theists are onto something. Jesus called on his followers to abandon their families and give up their worldly possessions, and led by example in snubbing his own mother.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 5:36 pm
Contracts are like laws, they promote co-operative behavior, a desire to stay the course, to formally acknowledge one’s obligations to another or society is a reinforcer of behavior. If it isn’t then the rule of law is a farce.

So it’s the Law that makes for fidelity?

Presumably divorce makes for infidelity?

Or does the Law encourage women to divorce?

Is it a culture of easy divorce or the Law that encourages infidelity and absent fathers?

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 5:37 pm
What’s the divorce rate these days? 20%?

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 5:37 pm
It’s more accurate to say that it’s only a serious issue for a tiny minority of people.

So it’s apparently OK to overturn a bedrock social institution to keep a tiny minority happy?

But of course. Society once knew what was in its best interests and acted sometimes ruthlessly to protect that interest. Today sentimentality rules. Just like at school where everyone must get a prize. We’ve gone soft and there will be consequences for that.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 5:40 pm
And I know people that have a business with no intention of turning a profit. None of which counts against the fact that business is orientated towards making profits. You might say that they haven’t banned this operation. Quite, but, if we had a institution that was not orientated towards turning a profit and never could, we would have grounds for denying it was a business and not some sort of other institution, say a not-for-profit. None of this bans either type, or involves any inequality, and given the differences, is likely to in fact lead to more coherence when thinking about the two as types.

And yet they are still recognised as “married” and you have not proposed banning empty-nest marriages. For exactly the same reason, there is no reason to deny gay couples the same legal institution (and the same responsibilities) that are extended to empty-nesters.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 5:40 pm
the anti-family theists

lol oh well at least you didn’t label me a gay hater.

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 5:42 pm
My wife wouldn’t kiss until after the third date.

I didn’t like this much as it made the sex on the first two dates feel very impersonal.

Splatacrobat

8 Feb 13 at 5:45 pm
If the government recognition of same sex marriage is as widely supported as has been claimed, put it to referendum. Such a sweeping change to the Marriage Act deserves the imprimatur of the populace before enactment. It shouldn’t be decided wholly by 150 men and women.

It’s a more fundamental societal change than moving to a Republic and deserves to be treated as such.

Lloyd

8 Feb 13 at 5:46 pm
The overwhelming majority of heterosexuals in Australia support gay marriage. A super-majority. They evidently don’t believe that gay marriage will harm their relationship in any way. A minority oppose gay marriage for various reasons, but gay marriage will make no difference to their relationship either.

Fisky, that is a really bad argument. Let me just substitute incestuous for gay marriage:

They evidently don’t believe that ~~gay~~ incestuous marriage will harm their relationship in any way. A minority oppose ~~gay~~ incestuous marriage for various reasons, but ~~gay~~ incestuous marriage will make no difference to their relationship either.

Hmmm, yes, that argument is really bad.

dover_beach

8 Feb 13 at 5:46 pm
What’s the divorce rate these days? 20%?

Not sure Gab but I did some quick glances at the data and there was the suggestion the divorce rate is falling.

So it’s the Law that makes for fidelity?

It helps James. I’m not into absolutism with regard to human behavior. I’m bloody mystified by it to tell the truth. Various contingencies drive our behavior but sorting out the quantifiable aspects of those contingencies is well nigh impossible. That may always be true but I’m not going to discuss that here because it goes on and on and on. It is one reason why I become annoyed with psychologists and all their bloody problematic theories about behavior. We catch hints, cultures develop structures that promote some behaviors and inhibit others. The science is embryonic, long way to go, perhaps a bridge too far.

John H.

8 Feb 13 at 5:46 pm
My wife wouldn’t kiss until after the third date.

I didn’t like this much as it made the sex on the first two dates feel very impersonal.

This has made the thread worthwhile.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 5:48 pm
Hmmm, yes, that argument is really bad.

The bar on this thread could not possibly be lower – JamesK has asserted that gay marriage will destroy freedom and abolish fatherhood, without any dissent from the (oxymoronically, according to the Gospels) “pro-family Christians”.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 5:49 pm
The historic purpose of medicine is to heal, promote wellbeing, support failing bodily systems and alleviate human suffering.

In other words, to fight the natural forces of disease, ageing and death. To interfere with nature. That is the very purpose of medicine.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 5:49 pm
But FF and MM couples do not suffer any abnormalities or injuries that prevent them from procreating

One could argue that being gay is itself an abnormality that prevents procreation. And now medical science can help. Yay!

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 5:50 pm
A decrease of 1.4% in divorce rates over the last two years? Is that statistically significant and indicative of a long term trend?

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 5:51 pm
My gut feeling is that gay marriage will be like disco. A brief moment when heteros and homos shared the dancefloor until they decided it was much better suited to the homos. Marriage is hetero disco.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 5:52 pm
Having said that, perhaps the anti-family theists are onto something. Jesus called on his followers to abandon their families and give up their worldly possessions, and led by example in snubbing his own mother.

Too be fair to Jesus, his mother (and brothers and sisters) did tell the public he was mad and tried to take him into protective custody.

Quentin George

8 Feb 13 at 5:53 pm
JamesK, I’ll address your arguments, such as they are:

“Christian Adoption agencies no longer function … This is an argument against anti-discrimination.
Moreover a British judge last year found … This is an argument against stupid judges and perhaps dumb anti-discrimination laws.
In Spain there is no longer a ‘Mother’ or ‘Father’ on the birth certificates … How is this an argument against gay marriage?
In America the tragedy of the black American family is rooted in the absence of fatherhood. Problems with unwed black teen mothers are an argument against gay marriage because?
The great New York Democrat Senator … how are all your fears about the breakdown of the traditional family affected by allowing gays to marry. Unless you think unmarriable gays will choose to be devoted hetrosexual husbands and wives.
A society that does not honour the family with the ideal of a loving father and mother is guaranteeing adverse societal outcomes. Allowing gay marriage does not dishonor the ideal of a loving father and mother.
It will take some time- perhaps a decade or more to radically change society and disenfranchise and belittle responsible fatherhood – but then the NHS didn’t take too long to rot the soul of the Brits. This is just raving.
20%+ of Russians still love Uncle Joe Stalin. Is this because of gay marriage?
Single mums voted for Obummer in record numbers. So gays should not get married?
The know who der Daddy is. At this point it is easy to image the spittle all over your screen.”

Pedro

8 Feb 13 at 5:53 pm
And yet they are still recognised as “married” and you have not proposed banning empty-nest marriages. For exactly the same reason, there is no reason to deny gay couples the same legal institution (and the same responsibilities) that are extended to empty-nesters.

Fisky, did you miss my reply to just this objection? (And why do you continue to speak of ‘banned’ when what is being discussed is recognition?) Both relationships are different, in a similar way to which for-profit organisations are different to not-for-profit organisations, and the fact that some for-profit organisations fail to make a profit by choice or circumstances doesn’t mean we should roll the latter into the former which is precisely what you are arguing.

dover_beach

8 Feb 13 at 5:53 pm
One could argue that being gay is itself an abnormality that prevents procreation.

That’s probably the nicest thing any of the bible belivers would be able to say about homosexuals, if they take their scriptures seriously.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 5:54 pm
Both relationships are different

Nope, they are legally identical, and recognised as such. And so too will be gay marriage, with a minor gain to society as a whole.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 5:55 pm
“Fisky, that is a really bad argument. Let me just substitute incestuous for gay marriage”

Dover, in a democracy, a majority view on a law change is in fact a good argument for the change. Contemplating some alternative that has no public support is not an argument against the change, it’s as dumb as the beagle argument.

Pedro

8 Feb 13 at 5:58 pm
Pedro, it is extraordinary that JamesK has had nothing to say about long-term gay relationships. He presumably thinks they are less relevant to a debate on gay marriage than Stalinism, black family breakdown and the NHS.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 6:00 pm
Fine let gays get married but repeal no fault divorce.

Lets go back to the 30′s when trenchcoat clad private detectives would burst in on adulters taking pictures as evidence. I see no problem in A Current Affair airing shots of unfaithful partners getting jackhammered up the arse proving them unworthy of divorce property settlements.

Splatacrobat

8 Feb 13 at 6:02 pm
I know, when I read the stalin bit I realised he must have been on the piss all arvo. I think JamesK is pretty dim, but that was cake-taking.

Pedro

8 Feb 13 at 6:02 pm
In other words, to fight the natural forces of disease, ageing and death. To interfere with nature. That is the very purpose of medicine.

The traditional purpose of medicine is not primarily to interfere with nature but to alleviate suffering and promote wellbeing. This cannot be equated with medical processes which have the primary purpose of interfering with nature in the service of ideology.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 6:03 pm
It’s not really that extraordinary. JamesK has nothing to say about anything apart from the occasional interjection of “fuckhead” or “leftist” or “fuckhead leftist”.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 6:03 pm
In other words, to fight the natural forces of disease, ageing and death. To interfere with nature. That is the very purpose of medicine.

Not at all; since it is a natural inclination to want to live, medicine can hardly count as interfering with nature. That would be like saying the musculoskeletal system interferes with gravity and thus nature.

dover_beach

8 Feb 13 at 6:03 pm
In other words, to fight the natural forces of disease, ageing and death. To interfere with nature. That is the very purpose of medicine.

Rubbish. Medicine harnesses nature to effect good treatment

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 6:07 pm
I see no problem in A Current Affair airing shots of unfaithful partners getting jackhammered up the arse proving them unworthy of divorce property settlements.

Actually the drafters of the UK bill could not come up with a formulation for consummation of a same sex marriage nor could they agree on what might constitute adultery in a same sex relationship as a grounds for divorce. Expect more of this confusion as ideologues strive to make their parody resemble the real thing.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 6:09 pm
I know, when I read the stalin bit I realised he must have been on the piss all arvo. I think JamesK is pretty dim, but that was cake-taking.

Incisive, Pedro.

You must be an awfully intelligent fellow.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 6:09 pm
Not at all; since it is a natural inclination to want to live

Wanting to reproduce is also a natural inclination, even for gay people. If it wasn’t, there wouldn’t be any gay people. They didn’t just appear all of a sudden when the Village People released “YMCA”.

That would be like saying the musculoskeletal system interferes with gravity and thus nature

Of course it interferes with gravity, and thus nature. What you seem to be missing is that interfering with nature is what humans do. It’s why we are the dominant species on the planet. It’s why we have landed on the moon. It’s why we are typing graphical representations of spoken language to each other on machines thousands of miles apart connected only by segments of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 6:10 pm
Since you’re such an intelligent fine fellow Pedro, tell us the two positive arguments for radically changing civilisation’s core institution.

Just so we all know why you’re so right.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 6:12 pm
I’m not sure I agree that marriage is the core institution of civilisation.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 6:14 pm
I’m not sure I agree that marriage is the core institution of civilisation

With that statement we see the confusion of the age writ large.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 6:15 pm
Actually the drafters of the UK bill could not come up with a formulation for consummation of a same sex marriage

Middle Eastern countries used to rely on a bloodstained bedsheet hanging out the window. Maybe consumation of gay marriage would involve minimal change to this tradition, just a change of colour to brown.

Splatacrobat

8 Feb 13 at 6:16 pm
I’m not sure I agree that marriage is the core institution of civilisation

Everyone knows the core institution is now Centrelink.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 6:21 pm
It is certainly a core institution, the benefits of which will soon be enjoyed by gay people as well.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 6:21 pm
Nope, they are legally identical, and recognised as such. And so too will be gay marriage, with a minor gain to society as a whole.

If they were legally identical there would be no clamour for change, I would be unable to show precisely how they were different, and how pretending they are the same makes the institution itself incoherent.

Dover, in a democracy, a majority view on a law change is in fact a good argument for the change.

So, once a majority view forms, even if it is in principle, arbitrary, incoherent, and/or evil, it is a good argument for change merely to say that it is the majority view. Wow.

Contemplating some alternative that has no public support is not an argument against the change, it’s as dumb as the beagle argument.

Not at all. If you present an argument in which I can simply substitute a term and thus illustrate its weakness, that is a dumb argument, not the illustration. So far as the beagle argument is concerned, neither is that a dumb argument since it demonstrates that given the acceptance of that redefinition, there can be no in principle objection to the latter change, and were a majority to support such a change, given what you write above, you would find that a good argument for beagle-human ‘marriage’.

dover_beach

8 Feb 13 at 6:22 pm
If they were legally identical there would be no clamour for change, I would be unable to show precisely how they were different

There is no legal clamour for change – married empty-nester couples have the same rights, responsibilities and recognition as breeders. There is also no clamour to not recognise them – and once gay couples win the right to marry, nor will there be any clamour to derecognise them.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 6:25 pm
With that statement we see the confusion of the age writ large.

Plenty of civilised societies in history did not make monogamous marriage exclusive.

I would argue that the rule of law is the core institution of civilisation. In fact, if you look up civilisation in the dictionary, I’m pretty sure it will say something to that effect.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 6:26 pm
It is certainly a core institution, the benefits of which will soon be enjoyed by gay people as well.

The benefits are matched by hardships in real life real marriages. Including the financial hardships experienced by most suburban couples as they struggle to bring up their kids and make ends meet. Including bearing with the problems often experienced after childbirth with the mother too tired and uninterested in sex. Including the expectation that through it all sexual fidelity will be maintained. Somehow I can’t see any of that happening to our newly minted newly weds as they waltz off to the opera and the next cocktail party.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 6:39 pm
Plenty of civilised societies in history did not make monogamous marriage exclusive.

That’s simply not true.

Polygamy was present in early Jewish society for a very very brief spell when survival of the race itself was threatened.

Great thinkers over 3 millenniae have argued against poygamy.

They’ve argued against racism, bigotry and sexism.

No great thinkers in human recorded history have argued for same sex marriage ever until the last 20 or 30 years.

That you doubt marriage and fmily as the core institution of human civilisation is instructive.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 6:45 pm
I would argue that the rule of law is the core institution of civilisation. In fact, if you look up civilisation in the dictionary, I’m pretty sure it will say something to that effect.

The rule of law doesn’t perpetuate the human race. The rule of law does not provide the framework for our emotional support and physical survival. The rule of law does not look after us when we are sick and provide a circle of warmth and protection not only for family members but often for waifs and strays and orphans. Marriage is the beginning of the thousands of family groups which provide most of us with refuge in a hostile world. The union of man and wife in fact forms the basis of our very existence.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 6:50 pm
No great thinkers in human recorded history have argued for same sex marriage ever until the last 20 or 30 years.

Who cares? Polygamy has been advocated for thousands of years. Doesn’t make it a decent institution.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 6:52 pm
Including the expectation that through it all sexual fidelity will be maintained. Somehow I can’t see any of that happening to our newly minted newly weds as they waltz off to the opera and the next cocktail party.

Why would male homosexuals be any less likely to be monogamous than male heterosexuals?

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 6:53 pm
Who cares? Polygamy has been advocated for thousands of years. Doesn’t make it a decent institution.

Classic dumbfuck response.

Which great thinkers in history have advocated polygamy for “thousand of years”?

Your stupidity is beyond parody Fisky.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 6:55 pm
Polygamy was present in early Jewish society for a very very brief spell when survival of the race itself was threatened.

This may come as a shock, but the Jews were not the only society on Earth. And they weren’t even close to the most civilised one.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 6:55 pm
This may come as a shock, but the Jews were not the only society on Earth. And they weren’t even close to the most civilised one.

Ooh yeah genius.

I’m shocked!

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 6:57 pm
Which great thinkers in history have advocated polygamy for “thousand of years”?

Mohammad certainly qualifies as a great thinker, or at least an influential one. He was certainly a greater thinker than you are, and, for all his faults, he would not have invoked Joseph Stalin to argue against gay marriage.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 6:57 pm
Why would male homosexuals be any less likely to be monogamous than male heterosexuals?

Well, for one thing, their prospective bit on the side is also male, and males are kind of notorious for liking sex more than women.

I don’t think anyone is seriously doubting that male homosexuals have way more casual sex than heteros do.

The opposite is true for lesbians though.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 6:58 pm
The rule of law doesn’t perpetuate the human race. The rule of law does not provide the framework for our emotional support and physical survival. The rule of law does not look after us when we are sick and provide a circle of warmth and protection not only for family members but often for waifs and strays and orphans.

Elephants manage to do all of that without the hassle of getting married.

Yobbo

8 Feb 13 at 7:00 pm
Stop press!

Fisky thinks Mohammed was a great thinker!

Presumably Mohammed was all for same sex marriage

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 7:07 pm
Elephants manage to do all of that without the hassle of getting married.

Why equate human with animal society? The relevance escapes me. When in doubt be flippant I suppose.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 7:08 pm
Well, for one thing, their prospective bit on the side is also male, and males are kind of notorious for liking sex more than women.

That’s a good point – you are combining the two higher individual probabilities of a man cheating.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 7:10 pm
Elephants manage to do all of that without the hassle of getting married.

Yea and the bull elephant gets to inseminate the females. The betas can’t even masturbate.

You’re going to have a lot of miserable males Yobbo.

Hi! Frank Walker from National Tiles

8 Feb 13 at 7:10 pm
Elephants manage to do all of that without the hassle of getting married.

Yea and the bull elephant gets to inseminate the females. The betas can’t even masturbate.

You’re going to have a lot of unhappy, miserable males, Yobbo.

Frank Walker from National Tiles

8 Feb 13 at 7:11 pm
Stop press!

Fisky thinks Mohammed was a great thinker!

Presumably Mohammed was all for same sex marriage

Much of what he said was wrong, like you, but he did have enough charisma to amass a large following. You have the unique quality of being able to repel people even when they agree with you 100%.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 7:12 pm
Why equate human with animal society?

It makes more sense than trying to draw a line between the KGB and gay marriage.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 7:14 pm
Much of what he said was wrong, like you, but he did have enough charisma to amass a large following. You have the unique quality of being able to repel people even when they agree with you 100%.

Stop press!

Fisky thinks Mohammad has charisma!

Presumably Mohammad’s 9 wives thought so too.

JamesK

8 Feb 13 at 7:15 pm
Why equate human with animal society?

Read, The Age of Empathy by Frans De Waal then get back to me on that. Animals have morality, human crowd behavior as some surprising similarities with animal herd behavior. Frans de Waal even cites a case of a rescued whale thanking its saviors and a chimp that tries to help a bird fly away. As Darwin noted: He who understand the baboon will do more to advance philosophy than Locke. (M Book) Hell I just read an article on how even basic chemistry exhibits “intentionality”, “competition”. Natural selection is not just about Life. As some physicists have argued the process is a pervasive feature of the universe. I await the next installment from the Alternberg 16.

John H.

8 Feb 13 at 7:25 pm
The union of man and wife in fact forms the basis of our very existence.

This is why society has historically privileged this form of relationship. The attempt to superimpose a preferred ideology over brute fact has mostly characterised the antics of the Left – until now. Sections of the right, traditionally the more grounded in commonsense, have evidently been bamboozled by the weasel word “equality” and the laudable desire to be nice to gay people. This is a sign that the culture war has largely been lost.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 7:33 pm
The Age of Empathy by Frans De Waal then get back to me on that. Animals have morality, human crowd behavior as some surprising similarities with animal herd behavior.

The inability/unwillingness to distinguish between the animal and human levels of existence is one consequence of our living in a secular age. Cooking up the notion of gay “marriage” is another outcome of the prevailing culture. Peter Hitching (quoted and linked in the Open thread) explains that it is futile to argue with those in the grip of the current paradigm. He is probably right.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 7:40 pm
Frans de Waal even cites a case of a rescued whale thanking its saviors …

Yea right.

Often the time the idiot creatures just turn back and beach themselves again.

jupes

8 Feb 13 at 7:43 pm
Sections of the right, traditionally the more grounded in commonsense, have evidently been bamboozled by the weasel word “equality” and the laudable desire to be nice to gay people.

I can only speak for myself – gay marriage is a worthy cause not because it will lead to equality, but because it will encourage gays to lead more traditional lifestyles. I advocate gay marriage on exactly the same grounds that I advocate heterosexual marriage.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 7:46 pm
Often ~~the time~~ the idiot creatures just turn back and beach themselves again.

Who’s the idiot?

jupes

8 Feb 13 at 7:50 pm
I can only speak for myself – gay marriage is a worthy cause not because it will lead to equality, but because it will encourage gays to lead more traditional lifestyles. I advocate gay marriage on exactly the same grounds that I advocate heterosexual marriage.

I think you will find that gay activists’ drive for gay marriage is more about enforcing equality than enthusiasm for the act of getting married. The gay subculture is antithetic to the values of monogamy – it encompasses the cult of youth, the body beautiful and unfettered sexual expression. How you mean to shoehorn all of that into a bourgeois lifestyle is a mystery.

From my experience, you will find that gays who inhabit the mainstream of society, avoid the gay ghetto/subculture like the plague and oftentimes vote right of centre are already in long-term relationships and need no persuading on this issue. They are not at all obviously gay and are more interested in equal rights rather than being able to marry.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 8:02 pm
I think you will find that gay activists’ drive for gay marriage is more about enforcing equality than enthusiasm for the act of getting married. The gay subculture is antithetic to the values of monogamy – it encompasses the cult of youth, the body beautiful and unfettered sexual expression. How you mean to shoehorn all of that into a bourgeois lifestyle is a mystery.

The gays of that ilk won’t get married. Problem solved.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 8:03 pm
From my experience, you will find that gays who inhabit the mainstream of society, avoid the gay ghetto/subculture like the plague and oftentimes vote right of centre are already in long-term relationships and need no persuading on this issue. They are not at all obviously gay and are more interested in equal rights rather than being able to marry.

And the gays of this ilk will get married. Horses for courses.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 8:04 pm
Would forcing churches to marry gay couples not be unconstitutional?

I had to be baptised before the local priest would christen my kids.

sdfc

8 Feb 13 at 8:08 pm
Are you high?

.

8 Feb 13 at 8:09 pm
It was a question Dot, don’t get excited. s116

sdfc

8 Feb 13 at 8:13 pm
Err yeah I understand that but what does the fuckarse backward rules of the church got to do with that?

There are cases going back to WWI revolving around freedom of conscience. It has been discussed before on the cat.

It’s a good point. The church would probably stop marrying anyone, basically going on strike.

.

8 Feb 13 at 8:15 pm
I would say if the church refused to marry gays on religious grounds, afterall all they have to do is point to the bible, the Commonwealth doesn’t have the power to make them.

sdfc

8 Feb 13 at 8:18 pm
I don’t reckon you couldn’t enforce it because there would always be alternatives.

It would be different if they were the only mob authorised to give out marriage certificates.

.

8 Feb 13 at 8:20 pm
So religion trumps sexuality? In Australia? with Roxon’s offence laws? I don’t believe it.

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 8:20 pm
Why would that be, SDFC?
There;s nothing in the constitution would even remotely protect a religious insto in Australia.

Jc

8 Feb 13 at 8:22 pm
That would be a conflict.

sdfc

8 Feb 13 at 8:22 pm
Conflict with religious teachings? So what?

Jc

8 Feb 13 at 8:28 pm
JC

Like I said s116. That the Commonwealth can’t make a law “imposing any religious observance”.

I may be way off, I don’t know. But if marrying gays is against theology, then would making them marry gays not be imposing a religious observance?

sdfc

8 Feb 13 at 8:31 pm
The inability/unwillingness to distinguish between the animal and human levels of existence is one consequence of our living in a secular age. Cooking up the notion of gay “marriage” is another outcome of the prevailing culture. Peter Hitching (quoted and linked in the Open thread) explains that it is futile to argue with those in the grip of the current paradigm. He is probably right.

Yea right.

Often the time the idiot creatures just turn back and beach themselves again.

Confirmation bias, knew that would happen. Strike One. So intelligent you don’t even have to read the studies, so insightful into behavior that you already have the answers. The whole point of this research is to highlight both differences and similiarities. No-one is arguing our behaviours is just like animals. Straw Man. Strike Two. Human beings do plenty of stupid things too, like fail to recognise our propensity for innate cognitive deficits. Strike Three.

READ something. Try it sometime.

John H.

8 Feb 13 at 8:41 pm
SDFC

Someone like Von Roxon, the lying slapper , Tubbsie Milne or say Clive Happy Hamilton would simply not issue or revoke the celebrants license.

I can’t see how the Constitution would be breached there.

Jc

8 Feb 13 at 8:43 pm
Fair enough.

sdfc

8 Feb 13 at 8:49 pm
Like I said, JamesK is a less-talented proto-Bird.

The time will come when Sinc sees that and crushes him like a bug.

Abu Chowdah

8 Feb 13 at 8:55 pm
Greatest blog in the world

http://graemebirdforum.wordpress.com/

.

8 Feb 13 at 9:25 pm
JamesK is a doctor I believe. His bedside manner must be something to behold.

Infidel Tiger

8 Feb 13 at 9:30 pm
Bird has always been one of the most entertaining commenters on this blog. And, when he keeps his insanity in check, one of the more thought provoking commenters to boot.

sdfc

8 Feb 13 at 9:37 pm
Bird is currently going through his Hitler phase.

Gab

8 Feb 13 at 9:39 pm
Bird has always been one of the most entertaining commenters on this blog. And, when he keeps his insanity in check, one of the more thought provoking commenters to boot.

Ya think? You realize he’s gone fully retarded anti-Semite with references to The Protocols and general Jew hating?

Grab a load of this disgusting bilge.
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/

Jc

8 Feb 13 at 9:39 pm
JamesK is a doctor I believe. His bedside manner must be something to behold.

JC doesn’t pansy fuckwits. He wants the best damned opinion and best treatment!

I tend to agree. Aggressive and cutting edge. Fuck my feelings.

.

8 Feb 13 at 9:41 pm
JC and Gab

Obviously his basic insanity has got the better of him again as it does all too often. Which is why I assume he’s banned.

sdfc

8 Feb 13 at 9:45 pm
Eggdactly Dot.

Shudder the thought that if I was ever diagnosed with a serious illness, I wouldn’t want an incompetent idiot with a good bedside manner holding my hand and shit.

I want the best doc around to help figure out the best course of treatment and if he was an arrogant arsehole then okay I can “live” with that.

Jc

8 Feb 13 at 9:46 pm
SDFC

I’d call it splurges of insanity. A giant explosion of insanity… A supernova. There are like two supernovas exploding in Birdie’s mind at the moment.

Jc

8 Feb 13 at 9:49 pm
It’s not technically a Hitler thing, because apparently Hitler was also a Jew, according to Bird. He is going through another phase. Let him work it through and he’ll be fine.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 9:56 pm
Looks like Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all Jews according to Bird. Like I side, give him a few months and he’ll be onto something else.

Fisky

8 Feb 13 at 10:02 pm
READ something. Try it sometime.

Will do John H. Since your post was in reply to my question “Why equate human and animal society” I assumed that was its intention. Your actual intention was more nuanced. Must pay greater attention.

Viva

8 Feb 13 at 10:24 pm
Marriage is like a deck of cards. In the beginning all you need is two hearts and a diamond.

By the end you wish you had a club and a spade.

Splatacrobat

8 Feb 13 at 11:17 pm
I can only speak for myself – gay marriage is a worthy cause not because it will lead to equality, but because it will encourage gays to lead more traditional lifestyles.
…
The gays of that ilk won’t get married.
…
And the gays of this ilk will get married.

Fisky, you’ve just defeated your argument. Firstly, you support gay ‘marriage’ to encourage more traditional lifestyles only to admit that gays of the first ilk will simply avoid it while gays of the second ilk would be monogamous anyway.

More importantly though, what business does the government have encouraging exclusivity and permanence in a relationship that is in and of itself non-procreative? Perfectly reasonable encouraging marriage between the sexes since children may result from coitus but not in SSR. If the latter want to have multiple partners, that is their own business. Thus, by adding such a relationship within the ambit of marriage you undermine the coherence of exclusivity and permanence therein and essentially radicalize (read dissolve) a once traditional institution.

In respect of the social beneficial outcomes argument you raise, friendship, as well, has lots of socially beneficially outcomes, but it is no business of the government to encourage these (although it shouldn’t put any impediments in its place) or create legal instruments that do so, or to pretend that friendship is marriage in order to obtain some socially beneficial outcome.

Hell I just read an article on how even basic chemistry exhibits “intentionality”,…

Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s revenge! JohnH, I really think the next 50 years are going to explode the modern paradigm in philosophy and science that more or less junked formal and final causes without even an argument.

dover_beach

8 Feb 13 at 11:36 pm
Who said that all the current generation of screaming queens would suddenly settle down and get on the, er, straight and narrow? We have nothing to offer those people and can basically forget about them. What we do have to offer young gay people who have yet to go off the rails into Peter Patton territory is the possibility of being a normal member of society with the same opportunities as straights and none of the guilt and fear that caused the radical reaction and alienation in the first place. And giving them the same recognition and responsibilies as any other long term couple will delegitimise the malcontents and bourgeoisify homosexuality totally. Even if the gambit doesn’t come off, the effects will be miniscule compared to single parenting.

Fisky

9 Feb 13 at 12:27 am
Fisky

You mean people like Tim Wilson who write numerous articles about this in The Australian

Homocons are hated by people like the gay lobby who think theyre traitors

Food for thought

9 Feb 13 at 12:47 am
Heteronormative arguments aside…..

Assimilation for minority groups always are a interesting journey

Food for thought

9 Feb 13 at 12:50 am
I really think the next 50 years are going to explode the modern paradigm in philosophy and science that more or less junked formal and final causes without even an argument.

That started about 90 years ago. Remember all those quotes I provided some months ago?The idea of chemical processes being subject to natural selection like processes is pretty much old hat by now and can be approached from chemistry, physics, and mathematics. It may mean more than that which is why I remain in the “I don’t bloody well know” camp. I prefer Occam’s razor here, if a more basic explanation elucidates the process I’ll stay with that rather than thinking it implies more than that.

It could pan out as you say, that wouldn’t surprise me but I won’t live long enough to see those questions answered. I’m not sure anyone will. There are limits to what we can know.

A stunning example of re-assembly is the tobacco mosaic virus. Chop it up into nucleotides, place it in a broth, and it will re-assemble into an active virus.

BTW, I’ve just finished reading the most distressing book on the history psycho-pharmacology(David Healy). I’m tempted to join the anti-psychiatrist brigade but they are nuts.

Have a good weekend DB. I like your ideas even if don’t agree with them.

John H.

9 Feb 13 at 1:04 am
Alex Greenwich has done the deal…..

Corporate activism and a gay lib in sheeps clothing…

Food for thought

9 Feb 13 at 1:18 am
I find it distressing to acknowledge that the social engineers of the left have won a resounding victory in the culture war – such as people on our side of the debate can no longer discriminate because discrimination has now be made a pejorative term.

Amen, Viva.

nilk

9 Feb 13 at 7:45 am
The breakdown of family values in the US (which is now only gradually being reversed) is real, but has nothing to do with gay marriage.

The gay marriage debate is a consequence of the ‘breakdown in family values’ and not a cause.

Gay marriage will make practically no difference to the number of fatherless households.

Oh, well that’s okay then. Rather than getting back to the root of the problem, which is reinvigorating and supporting what used to be considered the normal scheme of things, let’s just throw a few more things into the mix.

What could possibly go wrong? After all, some places already have gay marriage and it’s not all gone to hell in a handbasket.

Yet.

These things play out over decades – look at where we’ve landed 40 years after the ‘sexual revolution’. How’s that working for us?

nilk

9 Feb 13 at 7:55 am
I don’t know why you are invoking the sexual revolution in the context of gay marriage. Gays have been with us forever, and always will be. The question is, what role would you like them to play in society? I want them to be like any other minority group – fully assimilated and responsible members of society. I think the former, religious approach of shaming them out of existence or worse was evil and destructive.

Fisky

9 Feb 13 at 4:48 pm
I think the former, religious approach of shaming them out of existence or worse was evil and destructive.

I agree but what has that got to do with SSM?

Leave the strawmen alone Fisky.

JamesK

9 Feb 13 at 4:51 pm
The basis for SSM is the idea that sexual attraction and the sentiment of love are what marriage is only about. Given these two premises, if M is sexually attracted to M – and they cannot help to be otherwise – and they both sincerely and consensually feel love for each other, they should be allowed to marry. But given that these two premises cannot exclude polyamorous and/or incestuous marriages, then I’m not sure why anyone should be persuaded by the cogency of these premises and/or their conclusion.

dover_beach

9 Feb 13 at 5:06 pm
I think any and all couples should be permitted contracts which align inheritance, power of attorney, mutual agency, and so on to their own wishes. I’m not sure why this is being talked about purely in terms of gay people. Why shouldn’t non- or a-sexual couples get rights?

Then we can neatly split off state recognised contracts from religious obligations, or introduce a contract specifically for those who reasonably expect to form a breeding pair. Once that’s done, due to religious tolerance, the state can formally acknowledge religious cremonies that also fit the already acknowledged parameters of exclusivity and mutual consent.

I suggest we call this new institution “marriage”.

But no. No, that’s not equal. We need to reduce everything to totally identical and essentially formless, therefore meaningless, non-definitions, so that it will be fair.

wreckage

9 Feb 13 at 11:19 pm
But given that these two premises cannot exclude polyamorous and/or incestuous marriages, then I’m not sure why anyone should be persuaded by the cogency of these premises and/or their conclusion.

That is why I reject the the gay lobby’s main argument about allowing same sex marriage that it is about ‘equal love’, equality and it is irrelevant of gender. The same argument could be used for polyamourous marraiges. It is about love, irrelevant of the number of people. Instead of gender, it will turn into a number debate. I don’t think gay marriage is a big deal either way, but I do think it has the potential to lead to such concepts being considered.

Andrew

9 Feb 13 at 11:26 pm
Andrew, the same argument is already being used to promote polyamorous marriages. And, of course, the same is true of incestuous marriages; these too are currently being promoted along the same lines.

dover_beach

10 Feb 13 at 10:31 am
I think any and all couples should be permitted contracts which align inheritance, power of attorney, mutual agency, and so on to their own wishes. I’m not sure why this is being talked about purely in terms of gay people. Why shouldn’t non- or a-sexual couples get rights?

Non and a-sexual couples do have those rights. You don’t need to consummate your marriage to get the legal benefits. You only need to sign the paper.

The reason this being talked about in terms of gay people is that gay couples do not have these rights.

Yobbo

10 Feb 13 at 1:01 pm
The reason this being talked about in terms of gay people is that gay couples do not have these rights.

That’s utter drivel.

JamesK

10 Feb 13 at 1:09 pm
That’s utter drivel

I have provided dozens of examples. Not going to do so again.

Yobbo

10 Feb 13 at 1:29 pm
I have provided dozens of examples

The premise is utter drivel.

JamesK

10 Feb 13 at 1:42 pm
But no. No, that’s not equal. We need to reduce everything to totally identical and essentially formless, therefore meaningless, non-definitions, so that it will be fair.

Of course this is the kind of thinking that is driving the left project in all areas – fair is the ultimate weasel word. Maybe next we will see artifical wombs embedded in men who want to experience carrying a baby which will then be delivered via a caesarian – why not? It’s only fair.

As a sceptical John Cleese observes in Life of Brian of a male colleague who insists on his right to have a baby: “It’s not symbolic of our struggle against oppression. It’s symbolic of our struggle against reality!” Same goes for the struggle for gay “marriage” methinks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

Viva

10 Feb 13 at 1:50 pm
It’s not the same.

They can and do get married. They can’t get pregnant.

.

10 Feb 13 at 1:52 pm
They can and do get married. They can’t get pregnant.

And as a consequence theirs will always be a “marriage” in inverted commas. Like I said earlier – apparently every child must now get a prize. Truly pathetic that they grasp at this crumb which they (and their supporters) confuse with the ingredients of bread.

Viva

10 Feb 13 at 2:09 pm
couple of points

The gay lobby is not accepting of polyamorists and were exclud as participants in The Mardi Gras

Glbtiq rights are amongst the best in the world

Upper middle class gays want their cake and eat it too all too often

Using the state and playing identity politics on all sides to pursue their own agenda is purely selfish

Food for thought

10 Feb 13 at 2:17 pm
So should infertile couples be forcibly divorced?

.

10 Feb 13 at 2:24 pm
The gay lobby is not accepting of polyamorists and were exclud as participants in The Mardi Gras

Really? Hell they accept the AFP and NSW Police even though they have problems with child sexual abuse and outright corruption…

.

10 Feb 13 at 2:26 pm
So should infertile couples be forcibly divorced?

Of course not. The assumption was always there that they could make a family together. That is why non consummation is grounds for annulment. They often suffer quite anough when this turns out not to be the case.

What is consummation of the “marriage” of two blokes? What constitutes adultery? It all gets pretty biological doesn’t it Dot. But lets just ignore inconvenient reality in our determination to ride roughshod over such considerations.

Viva

10 Feb 13 at 2:35 pm
The assumption was always there that they could make a family together. That is why non consummation is grounds for annulment.

Um that’s great but society is not run on canon law.

.

10 Feb 13 at 2:46 pm
They can and do get married. They can’t get pregnant.

And as a consequence theirs will always be a “marriage” in inverted commas.

Just like when 2 old people get married.

Yobbo

10 Feb 13 at 4:03 pm
Of course this is the kind of thinking that is driving the left project in all areas – fair is the ultimate weasel word. Maybe next we will see artifical wombs embedded in men who want to experience carrying a baby which will then be delivered via a caesarian – why not? It’s only fair.

Lol… but perhaps I should not laugh too quickly.

Socialism is indeed all about reducing people to a common sameness, and that’s exactly with gay people should be shit scared of democratic socialists.

Tel

10 Feb 13 at 4:15 pm
“exactly with” ==> “exactly why”

Tel

10 Feb 13 at 4:16 pm
Hell they accept the AFP and NSW Police …

It would appear that gun ownership comes with some advantages.

Tel

10 Feb 13 at 4:18 pm
Lol… but perhaps I should not laugh too quickly.

No perhaps you shouldn’t. Not so long ago when homosexual acts were decriminalised, people used to joke that “soon they’ll be wanting to marry each other”.

Viva

10 Feb 13 at 5:25 pm
And before civil rights, white people used to joke that they could one day be working for a black boss.

Yobbo

10 Feb 13 at 6:34 pm
And before civil rights, white people used to joke that they could one day be working for a black boss.

That’s not a slippery-slope argument though; gay marriage was always asserted to be. Anyway I summarised my thoughts as well as I could upthread. Civilised societies have tolerated gays for a long time now. My question boils down to what marriage, versus any other contract, actually is.

My solution is a wider range of contracts available for ostensibly long-term, exclusive pairs. In short I’d abolish marriage as it stands and introduce a standard form with optional allowances for religious observance. Everyone gets access, and religious folks get to have their own institution.

But really this isn’t about liberty, it’s about social dominance and group identity. That’s just my view of politics in general.

wreckage

10 Feb 13 at 9:45 pm
So should infertile couples be forcibly divorced?

Just like when 2 old people get married.

Of course not. This has been explained many times. Procreativity is not a test applied to particular couples because particular instances of a type may fail. The test is applied to the general type, MF or MM/FF relationships and when we do we find that the latter is non-procreative; it cannot fail to procreative, it just isn’t procreative. Period. Therefore, it isn’t a general relationship orientated towards children and thus it is not marriage. It really is that simple.

BTW, it’s heartening to see that those supporting gay ‘marriage’ are also quietly supportive of ‘marriage equality’ for polyamorous and incestuous arrangements.

dover_beach

10 Feb 13 at 10:39 pm
Is it just me? Or is there a fundamental flaw in John H argument that allowing gay marriage will breed out the gay gene or population. The only problem is that you go on to tell us how a friend of your Mum had their marriage annulled because the gay husband (presumably) never had sex with his wife. Mmmmm. You do know how kids are made don’t you?

1. It is just you. I refer you to various genetic analyses which show that even the faintest of changes in selection pressure can have wide ranging changes in gene frequency over the generations. Eg. E. Vbra: a 2% selection advantage will enable the relevant genes over 40 generations to sweep through a gene pool( if the individual organisms are close enough together of course).

Furthermore I cited 3 possibilities for the ongoing presence of homosexuality. All much more sensible than Evol. Psych. argument.s

2. Without consummation a marriage can be annulled, it is not even marriage. We have numerous examples of men who married, seeded children, but were gay. Maybe they did it while thinking of their favourite body-builder. There remains the possibility that genes are influential, it is entirely plausible to think that could be true even though the xq28 chromosomal finding is extremely weak but its association with the androgen receptor is intriguing. I would prefer a location that is associated with aromatase though because some studies do point to changes in estrogen\testosterone levels sexual orientation.

John H.

11 Feb 13 at 6:24 am
And before civil rights, white people used to joke that they could one day be working for a black boss.

A totally false analogy. This expression of bigotry – the very real possibility of having a black boss one day – cannot be compared to the impossibility of two blokes getting married. Such are the times we live in the impossible is countenanced in the name of ideology.

PS Attempts to compare blacks’ struggle for civil rights with gay politics have been soundly rebuffed by African Americans and rightly so.

Viva

11 Feb 13 at 7:57 am
A neat summary of the greatest political distraction of the decade:

HAS there ever been a weirder political issue than gay marriage? A cool-headed look back at events in Britain last week, where David Cameron’s gay marriage bill was passed in the House of Commons, suggests, no, there hasn’t been.

Think about it. Here we have politicians who have little commitment to the idea of rights (Cameron’s Tories) offering to expand marriage rights to people who have never traditionally wanted to get married (gays), and they have been cheered on by liberal commentators who think marriage is a naff institution (“Marriage is no more than a mystical word,” said one fulsomely pro-gay marriage columnist on the day of the Commons vote).

And yet all of this political freakiness, this bonkers expansion of marriage by those who don’t much care for it to those have never needed it, is treated as perfectly normal by observers.

More than that, it is depicted as a glorious moment in human history, on a par with blacks in America winning civil rights or women getting the vote. Has the world gone mad? I hope so, because otherwise I definitely have.

Token

11 Feb 13 at 9:02 am
Accept the a.f.p and police………..

Lol!!

Nasty but cute….

They look cute in uniforms the men in blue!!!

Food for thought

11 Feb 13 at 10:29 am
Wreckage

Spot on!!

The dominant Anglo culture you say???

Thats why middle class gays and their media try to assimilate and be exactly like that to win acceptance

The gay community is racist itself and reeks of hypocricy

Ironic isnt it??

Food for thought

11 Feb 13 at 11:30 am
Token, the most instructive portion of O’Neill’s article is this:

For all the harebrained attempts to doll up the passing of the marriage bill as the endpoint to 50 years of gay agitation, the truth is early gay radicals campaigned against marriage, not for it.

Marriage is a “rotten, oppressive institution”, said the 1970 Gay Manifesto. Homosexuals are “in revolt against the nuclear family structure”, said the influential Gay is Good tract of 1972.

The cranky claim that a Tory PM giving gays the right to get hitched represents the realisation of the dreams of those Stonewall rioters of 1969 (who actually wanted to abolish “all existing social institutions”) should be causing far more eyebrows to rise.
…
Gay marriage is an entirely invented issue, magicked up by a morally bereft political class desperate to appear meaningful, purposeful. So now they congratulate themselves for having made history while ordinary Brits look on in bamboozlement, decidedly unconvinced that history has happened or that our aloof, principle-lite rulers are the new Rosa Parks.

dover_beach

11 Feb 13 at 12:55 pm
Conservative middle class idiots who get paid to write about right wing issues……..??

Bolt_ Gay sister.

Abbott_ Gay sister.

Corporate Collins Street Suit–last seen at gay club in Melbourne having some fun….wifey and kids dont know about his closet self

Weird logic by some who have gay friends/relatives like these “fine” lads..

How much does he get paid to write this logic?

anarchists

11 Feb 13 at 4:28 pm
I’m bored with gay marriage. Can we talk about no-fault divorce instead?

I’ve never paid attention to the issue, so I’m interested in what people think. Because some upthread were critical, here’s a positive side:

Easy access to divorce redistributes marital power from the party interested in preserving the marriage to the partner who wants out. In most instances, this resulted in an increase in marital power for women, and a decrease in power for men.

Our analysis of US data revealed the legislative change [to no-fault divorce] had caused female suicide to decline by about a fifth, domestic violence to decline by about a third, and intimate femicide – the husband’s murder of his wife – to decline by about a tenth.

That’s from a 2006 Stevenson & Wolfers study.

Jarrah

11 Feb 13 at 10:21 pm
What about gay no fault divorce???

Smirk

Food for thought

12 Feb 13 at 1:25 am
Jarrah, was there a coinciding increase in male suicides?

Personally I think no-fault divorce kind of cuts both ways. Since fault is basically determined by the State I would have to decide to what extent the State is entitled to interfere; although there is a broken contract involved…

Yeah, no idea. I’ve seen bad cases both ways: good people abandoned by spouses, bad spouses escaped by people who deserved better. I think people don’t pay enough attention to the contract they’re signing. Perhaps a more realistic contract with explicit escape clauses, and normal enforcement of contract law thereafter?

wreckage

12 Feb 13 at 11:51 pm
“Jarrah, was there a coinciding increase in male suicides?”

Their 2000 study found no discernible effect on male suicide or murder, a result repeated in the 2010 FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

Jarrah

13 Feb 13 at 11:03 am
Cool, just wondering.

wreckage

13 Feb 13 at 11:28 am
I’m bored with gay marriage. Can we talk about no-fault divorce instead?

Lionel Murphy’s Law

stackja

13 Feb 13 at 8:34 pm
Good question, Jarrah. The difficulty with that approach is valuing the changes in well-being for husbands, wives, and children in either regime.

dover_beach

13 Feb 13 at 9:29 pm
Another complication is the noise pollution from family law in general, which can only be described as “all over the place like a madman’s shit”. It’s a diabolical system that manages to be misanthropic, misogynist, misandrist, and profoundly dehumanising all at once. The drop in suicides might be purely from reduced exposure to it, in which case I would say no-fault divorce is very very good as a legal construct. Lesser of two evils by a long shot.

Libertarian argument: People should be free to engage in their own customs, relationships and commitments. The state demanding to know why you dare end a marriage seems little better, in that sense, from the state arranging your marriages in the first place.

Conservative argument: the state is required to work towards sustaining and normalising institutions that preserve the benefits of a civilised and effective society. It is taken as fact that stable, long term marriages are highly desirable economically and socially and therefore government must be concerned with stabilising and extending marriages.

wreckage

14 Feb 13 at 2:32 pm
There’s no reason why the subscription pay TV channel wouldn’t work for the ABC. It works for Fox News and CNN.

Yobbo

14 Feb 13 at 2:44 pm
A lot of their vastly overpaid staff would have to take paycuts, however.

Yobbo

14 Feb 13 at 2:44 pm
Leading irrevocably to divorce.

wreckage

14 Feb 13 at 4:06 pm
Yobbo 14 Feb 13 at 2:44 pm

It wouldn’t work for the ABC.

Yobbo 14 Feb 13 at 2:44 pm A lot of their vastly overpaid staff would have to take paycuts, however.

ABC does not take cuts.

Timeline of Australian radio – Wikipedia
This led to the sealed set regulations where stations could be licensed to …

stackja

15 Feb 13 at 12:42 pm
Looks like religion is winning hands down over marriage in the comments stakes by today’s figures.

Is marriage fading away while religion is still going strong?

Discuss.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

15 Feb 13 at 1:34 pm
It seems marriage is altogether less controversial.

wreckage

15 Feb 13 at 11:56 pm
I would suggest that seen in broad enough terms marriage is pair bonding and religion is group identity, so both probably survive on timelines more attuned to substantial adaptive change or evolution, rather than election cycles, social movements, or even civilisations.

The track record of, say, Judaism for outliving the polities it inhabits is impressive. However pair bonding is (so I am told) older than modern humans, necessary to providing the surplus resources for raising such helpless pups with such enormous brains.

wreckage

16 Feb 13 at 12:50 am
“I would suggest that seen in broad enough terms marriage is pair bonding”

It’s a formalisation of pair bonding. There’s no reason to prevent people who have pair-bonded from formalising that relationship, even if they are of a tiny minority that can only pair-bond with their own sex.

Jarrah

18 Feb 13 at 4:13 pm
I don’t argue for no formalisation, I argue for a rationalisation of formalisation and a broadening of the availability of the legal “package” beyond bonded pairs; while retaining a formal recognition of the pre-existing traditins.

My comment was in reply to Lizzie.

wreckage

18 Feb 13 at 4:24 pm
It’s a formalisation of pair bonding. There’s no reason to prevent people who have pair-bonded from formalising that relationship, even if they are of a tiny minority that can only pair-bond with their own sex.

Except that the extension of the notion of ‘pair-bonding’ to SSRs between human beings or other animals is ridiculous since the term refers to a particular type of mating system orientated toward the generation of offspring. Since SSRs are non-generative they cannot be considered ‘pair-bonds’ without undermining the usefulness of the term.

dover_beach

18 Feb 13 at 4:40 pm
“Since SSRs are non-generative they cannot be considered ‘pair-bonds’ without undermining the usefulness of the term.”

Biologically, humans are driven to pair up to produce offspring, that’s true. But the fact is that some people have what amounts to a coding error that renders them homosexual, but still have the pair-bonding drive. Since we already have marriage between non-generative heterosexual people, there’s no reason to deny it to non-generative homosexual people. Both groups can be the exceptions to the (fading) rule without any negative effects, so why not?

Jarrah

18 Feb 13 at 5:09 pm
Both groups can be the exceptions to the (fading) rule without any negative effects, so why not?

That’s a disingenuous and stupid question.

You have been told many times the arguments against SSM.

Neither does the present Marriage Act prevent SS pair bonding.

Moreover SS pair-bond have all the legal rights of de-facto heterosexual relationship

JamesK

18 Feb 13 at 5:18 pm
“You have been told many times the arguments against SSM.”

Yes, and none of them are convincing. They certainly never entail descriptions of plausible harm, nor the mechanisms by which that supposed harm will eventuate.

“Neither does the present Marriage Act prevent SS pair bonding.”

Of course not. It prevents their formalisation.

Jarrah

18 Feb 13 at 5:42 pm
No fault divorce, followed by ‘harm minimisation’ of various other experiments. ‘Family’ Court has not made divorce any better. Anger has been unleashed and many hurt. Each experiment has had unforeseen yet negative consequences. Now smarriage? The negative consequences will surely follow.

stackja

18 Feb 13 at 9:39 pm
Traditions exist because they are adaptive. It is not so simple to just re-write them in a rational way.

wreckage

18 Feb 13 at 11:34 pm
Of course not. It prevents their formalisation.

Well actually it doesn’t. There’s nothing to prevent a gay or other unconventional (transgendered for example) couple holding a ceremony to formalise their arrangement. My question is can they then assign rights such as inheritance and next-of-kin to their liking or are they essentially banned from doing so?

wreckage

18 Feb 13 at 11:37 pm
Of course not. It prevents their formalisation.

No it fucking well doesn’t.

It prevents marriage as the institution of Marriage being redefined in law.

JamesK

18 Feb 13 at 11:42 pm
Biologically, humans are driven to pair up to produce offspring, that’s true. But the fact is that some people have what amounts to a coding error that renders them homosexual, but still have the pair-bonding drive.

Wow. I never imagined that Jarrah would say that homosexuals are objectively disordered.

Since we already have marriage between non-generative heterosexual people, there’s no reason to deny it to non-generative homosexual people. Both groups can be the exceptions to the (fading) rule without any negative effects, so why not?

Because procreativity is not a hurdle for particular cases of MF but for the general case, MM or FF. Particular cases of MF may fail to procreate, but MM and FF cannot even fail. Procreation isn’t a condition but an orientation of the relationship; the conditions of marriage are (i) a relationship between the sexes, that is (ii) permanent, and (iii) exclusive. I’m not sure why you fail to recognize the significance of this. BTW, all that is being denied to SSR is recognition as marriage because it lacks this orientation and fails in respect of at least one of its conditions.

dover_beach

18 Feb 13 at 11:43 pm
My question is can they then assign rights such as inheritance and next-of-kin to their liking or are they essentially banned from doing so?

Not banned, but it is harder and they don’t automatically get some rights. Sometimes, de facto partners generally don’t get rights spouses/next of kin have with end of life decisions.

That’s very rough and maybe a little haywire but it shows why they want formalisation to be legally recognised.

.

18 Feb 13 at 11:45 pm
Well actually it doesn’t.

That’s right. They’ve already been formalized as civil unions in many jurisdictions.

dover_beach

18 Feb 13 at 11:48 pm
dot, they can write a will and give power of attorney to their partner. Job done, and we don’t need to engage in the rectification of names.

dover_beach

18 Feb 13 at 11:50 pm
That’s very rough and maybe a little haywire but it shows why they want formalisation to be legally recognised.

So give ‘em a contract that does all that in a neat package. But don’t re-write the Marriage Act ad-hoc. Use a specific instrument so that it can be tuned and tweaked as needed without carrying on the ridiculous fiction that all relationships are the same thing.

wreckage

19 Feb 13 at 12:04 am
I personally define marriage as between a male and a female. However, I don’t believe the government should be involved in regulating contracts between consenting adults.

Oh come on

19 Feb 13 at 1:59 am
However, I don’t believe the government should be involved in regulating contracts between consenting adults

Who cares?

Pretty much everyone else does.

Moreover if you think about it, – that is beyond Oco first stage thinking – there would be chaos if governments didn’t.

JamesK

19 Feb 13 at 7:12 am
Who cares?

Pretty much everyone else does.

Moreover if you think about it, – that is beyond Oco first stage thinking – there would be chaos if governments didn’t.

Have you joined left Labor, James?

Never mind the bollocks!

dot, they can write a will and give power of attorney to their partner. Job done, and we don’t need to engage in the rectification of names.

Not quite, dover. Then again why do we need state sanctioned marriage again?

.

19 Feb 13 at 7:17 am
I tells ya!

.

19 Feb 13 at 7:22 am
Have you joined left Labor, James?

Marriage in law is still overwhelmingly popular ’round these parts, squire.

JamesK

19 Feb 13 at 9:50 am
“Wow. I never imagined that Jarrah would say that homosexuals are objectively disordered.”

That’s not what I said. I’m about as likely to call albinos ‘disordered’, or people with six fingers.

Your comment says a lot about your worldview where categories are static and discrete, in which there is no room for uncomfortable facts like how every single person in existence has hundreds of genetic mutations.

“Procreation isn’t a condition but an orientation of the relationship”

Not any more. The institution’s purpose has changed. Have you done that straw poll of your family, friends and acquaintances that I suggested long ago? Where you ask them why they got married, or what marriage means to them? You may be surprised at the results.

Jarrah

19 Feb 13 at 1:47 pm
Moreover if you think about it, – that is beyond Oco first stage thinking – there would be chaos if governments didn’t.

On your knees, there’s a good serf.

Oh come on

19 Feb 13 at 2:01 pm
“the conditions of marriage are (i) a relationship between the sexes, that is (ii) permanent, and (iii) exclusive.”

No, that’s just your opinion. Which is fine, I wouldn’t impinge on your right to your opinion. What I do object to is your insistence that the government legally enforce your opinion about marriage. And don’t give me that crap about how the state has a vital interest in the status quo. A, that argument conflates society and the state, and B, marriage pre-dates the state so obviously doesn’t need its oversight. While not a logical flaw, that argument also has the scary possibility of plausibly justifying a great deal of social engineering or other government interference with individual choices.

Jarrah

19 Feb 13 at 2:01 pm
“Even more so is the poll on gay marriage that GetUp is circulating around Facebook at the moment. I won’t debate it here, but it smacks of what Obama did in the US – hold out the promise for gays that they’ll get what they want if they vote Labor/Greens. FUCK THAT FUCKING SHIT. They’ve had five years to do it, certainly the better part of three, and have done FUCK-ALL, which is EXACTLY what they will do if re-elected.”

Perturbed, you seem confused. Labor has had time to do something substantial, but they officially opposed SSM until the end of 2011, and a substantial minority of the party still do so, including the PM. Stephen Jones’ doomed bill is the only thing they’ve done, close enough to nothing for me to agree with you on that point. In the incredibly tiny probability that they are returned to government, they no doubt will do nothing again.

The Greens, which you bizarrely lump in with Labor as if there were no difference, have done a lot (certainly more than FUCK-ALL) to try to get SSM through Parliament, and will continue to push for the majority of Australians’ wishes on this issue to be heeded.

Jarrah

20 Feb 13 at 5:16 am
I’d be happy enough with the exact same thing by a different name, honestly… Since the word “marriage” apparently means so much to some people (???). Nobody owns or defines the word, and I’d argue that until I went blue in the face, but for now, the exact same contract with a different name would suffice. Nobody could prevent you from sending out wedding invitations with the word “marriage” on it, so it’s a trivial sticking point…

It still seems to me that the most rational approach to the situation is to remove any reference to the word “marriage” from any legislation and leave it up to individuals to use the word as they see fit. Would having a “Contract of Union” rather than a “Marriage Certificate” honestly make that much difference, to heterosexuals or homosexuals? Both parties are still going to call it marriage colloquially, you can’t stop that without infringing their right to free speech.

Marky

20 Feb 13 at 6:46 pm
Jarrah:

That’s not what I said. I’m about as likely to call albinos ‘disordered’, or people with six fingers.

May be I read too much into “But the fact is that some people have what amounts to a coding error that renders them homosexual, but still have the pair-bonding drive” as meaning anything. That seemed to indicate a disorder of some sort given what you said was an inclination to pair-bond and thus procreate with the singular attraction to persons of the same sex which is non-procreative.

Your comment says a lot about your worldview where categories are static and discrete, in which there is no room for uncomfortable facts like how every single person in existence has hundreds of genetic mutations.

You mean like the category ‘category’, ‘universals’, ‘institution’, and so on? Also, I haven’t offered any biological basis for this supposed orientation. And the fact that people have multiple genetic mutations is neither here nor there, since some give rise to disorders of one sort or other and others do not; some may even be advantageous in the circumstances, but very rarely.

It would however be interesting to know what ‘coding errors’ can be categorized as disorders and which cannot be, at least so far you’re concerned.

No, that’s just your opinion. Which is fine, I wouldn’t impinge on your right to your opinion. What I do object to is your insistence that the government legally enforce your opinion about marriage. And don’t give me that crap about how the state has a vital interest in the status quo. A, that argument conflates society and the state, and B, marriage pre-dates the state so obviously doesn’t need its oversight. While not a logical flaw, that argument also has the scary possibility of plausibly justifying a great deal of social engineering or other government interference with individual choices.

Oh, now we have the: Oh, it’s just your opinion argument; nope, it is simply a fact that marriage through the ages and in every culture has been a relationship between the sexes, exclusive, and permanent. Firstly, I’ve never argued the state has a vital interest in the status quo, it does have one so far as children are concerned. Secondly, I’m not sure why the state recognizing marriage conflates state and society any more than the state recognizing persons does. Thirdly, given that marriage is a pre-political institution it has very good reasons NOT to redefine marriage but to accept it in the form it encountered it and to improve the coherence of that relationship over time. SSM cannot be said to do this at all; erase the first condition – and thus the orientation towards children – and you render the second and third conditions incoherent. Fourthly, the only people engaging in social engineering are those arguing for a change in one of the conditions of this relationship that dissolves its basic orientation and renders the other two conditions incoherent. The effect of which is the gutting of the idea of marriage itself which appears to be the object of this whole charade anyway.

dover_beach

20 Feb 13 at 9:59 pm
Marriage in law is still overwhelmingly popular ’round these parts, squire.

The Rabz impersonations are becoming convincing, I tells ya!

.

20 Feb 13 at 10:08 pm
Fourthly, the only people engaging in social engineering are those arguing for a change in one of the conditions of this relationship that dissolves its basic orientation and renders the other two conditions incoherent.

That’s a pretty good summary of the conservative position on this.

wreckage

21 Feb 13 at 11:15 pm
“It would however be interesting to know what ‘coding errors’ can be categorized as disorders and which cannot be, at least so far you’re concerned.”

Easy – ones that are harmful. Homosexuality isn’t harmful. Neither is homosexual marriage.

That’s actually a good segue into the core of the matter. All public policy should undergo a CBA. The benefits of allowing SSM are small, but non-zero. The costs are zero. Therefore we should do it.

“nope, it is simply a fact that marriage through the ages and in every culture has been a relationship between the sexes, exclusive, and permanent.”

No, that’s wrong. Between the sexes, yes, but exclusivity and permanence have not always been features of marriage. Are you afraid that acknowledging this would undermine your argument? Because you’re right. No wonder you keep your hands clapped over your ears and endlessly babble “betweenthesexesexclusivityandpermanence”.

You also keep ignoring one of my main points – it doesn’t matter what marriage has been, it only matters what it is now. Done that survey yet?

“Firstly, I’ve never argued the state has a vital interest in the status quo, it does have one so far as children are concerned. Secondly, I’m not sure why the state recognizing marriage conflates state and society any more than the state recognizing persons does.”

Your first point is the conflation of state and society. Your second is a strawman.

“Thirdly, given that marriage is a pre-political institution it has very good reasons NOT to redefine marriage but to accept it in the form it encountered it and to improve the coherence of that relationship over time.”

Which is a very nice way of saying you want the state to freeze society and its institutions (ie, the standard conservative position), and actively work against its own citizens’ wishes about how they want to live their personal lives.

“Fourthly, the only people engaging in social engineering are those arguing for a change in one of the conditions of this relationship that dissolves its basic orientation and renders the other two conditions incoherent”

What an utter perversion of the concept. Letting people do what they want is the OPPOSITE of social engineering.

Jarrah

23 Feb 13 at 11:14 am
Over at Julie Novak marriage gets a mention. What ever happened to a man and a woman and death till you part? New definitions are wrong!

stackja

23 Feb 13 at 1:36 pm
Which is a very nice way of saying you want the state to freeze society and its institutions (ie, the standard conservative position), and actively work against its own citizens’ wishes about how they want to live their personal lives.

If there was never a reason for this, we could just go straight to anarchy and be done with it.

wreckage

23 Feb 13 at 5:57 pm
A farewell to optimism

Without a powerful ideal of masculinity that points men toward marriage and fatherhood, more and more young men are deciding the hard work of becoming marriageable isn’t worth it: Porn, beer, video games with the guys, freedom and fleeting sexual encounters are good enough.

stackja

24 Feb 13 at 4:52 pm
Porn, beer, video games with the guys, freedom and fleeting sexual encounters are good enough.

I don’t quite get the porn angle though. Porn is really boring. It’s like going to a strip joint with the endless teasing but you can’t touch. Better just pump and dump.

To be honest it was the womeneses who push males into a corner when if the marriage breaks up legalized financial rape occurs and men left virtually destitute. Any advice to a young man should always be pump and dump and to scorn marriage like a vampire to a silver cross. And be sure to keep a journal of all meet ups seeing womeneses these days had the law changed where a relationship longer than a year is considered cohabitation even if the two have separate accommodation.

Jc

24 Feb 13 at 5:01 pm
Marry a strongly religious girl from a strongly religious family, and then don’t piss her off.

wreckage

24 Feb 13 at 10:45 pm
seeing womeneses these days had the law changed where a relationship longer than a year is considered cohabitation even if the two have separate accommodation.

Really? F#k? do you have a link for that – that is insane.

Max

25 Feb 13 at 2:54 pm
wreckage 24 Feb 13 at 10:45 pm

Again. What ever happened to a man and a woman and death till you part? Mostly worked in the past.

stackja

26 Feb 13 at 12:14 pm
What ever happened to a man and a woman and death till you part?

Works for me. But many people simply don’t mean the words they say, using them only for the enjoyable frisson they generate in ones’ self and others.

wreckage

26 Feb 13 at 11:04 pm
I could care less what consenting adults do with consenting adults, but it is difficult to see how. Anyway, I’m not convinced we’ve got the right to deny children the best environment possible, which I strongly believe is a mother and a father.

So if marriage doesn’t entail automatic adoption rights, I couldn’t care less if it becomes open to all. If it involves the acquisition of rights to children, not so much.

RCon

3 Mar 13 at 7:17 pm
Marriage never entailed automatic adoption rights. It’s extremely difficult for any couple to adopt a baby in Australia now, and has been for about 30 years.

By far the most common form of adoption now is adoption from overseas, especially China. And I’m pretty sure that having 2 mummies or 2 daddies is better than living in a Chinese orphanage.

Yobbo

4 Mar 13 at 3:22 am
CL

I simply pointed out that advocates of homosexual ‘marriage’ are yet to explain why a man shouldn’t be legally entitled to marry a beagle.

You are yet to explain whether you think bestiality should be legalised or homosexuality made illegal.

sdfc

4 Mar 13 at 10:15 pm
“I simply pointed out that advocates of homosexual ‘marriage’ are yet to explain why a man shouldn’t be legally entitled to marry a beagle.”

That’s because conservatives look at the diminishing hurdles for certain relationships to be called ‘marriage’ as a defacto elimination of all hurdles, including understanding and consent of all parties to the relationship. That’s a logical fallacy, but let’s run with it.

Say the government, rather than deregulating marriage, decides to expand what they recognise as marriage. So CL can finally marry his beagle, or even his lamp. The government is willing to recognise this as a marriage… are you? I’m not. I bet no-one else in this thread will do so either.

In fact, no-one other than fellow lamp-loving crazies are even going to consider this one-sided ‘marriage’ as such.

Does this hurt you, or me, or anyone else? Well, if there is some marriage-specific benefit the government wants to give, maybe taxpayers suffer. Since the legal benefits tend to assume a person is the beneficiary, that’s highly unlikely, but assuming there is some tax dodge (or whatever) open to lamp-marriers, then there would be a cost to society.

Otherwise (ie, in reality), someone declaring that they and their lamp is married is going to have as much impact as a small child talking about their imaginary friend needing a place at the table.

If opponents of SSM don’t want to recognise the relationship as marriage, that’s their right. They don’t have the right to impose their opinion through the apparatus of the state.

Jarrah

4 Mar 13 at 10:35 pm
But which you do instead by demanding a SST law. Hypocrite.

Louis Hissink

4 Mar 13 at 10:38 pm
ohh, SSM law, so sorry.

Louis Hissink

4 Mar 13 at 10:39 pm
That’s because conservatives look at the diminishing hurdles for certain relationships to be called ‘marriage’ as a defacto elimination of all hurdles, including understanding and consent of all parties to the relationship. That’s a logical fallacy, but let’s run with it.

No we haven’t. We argued that if you deny that marriage is a relationship between the sexes of a certain sort, then its other aspects – that it is also exclusive and permanent – lose their coherence. Consent and understanding is not even a condition which distinguishes marriage from friendship, and not all relationships require consent or understanding. I don’t see any “diminishing hurdles” here.

Otherwise (ie, in reality), someone declaring that they and their lamp is married is going to have as much impact as a small child talking about their imaginary friend needing a place at the table.

That is what one would have said about same-sex ‘marriage’ only 50 years.

They don’t have the right to impose their opinion through the apparatus of the state.

No, no. It’s not my opinion; I’m just preserving the identity of marriage as we have known it for thousands of years. It’s you that wants to impose a new definition – that is not identity-preserving – by means of the apparatus of the state. Thankfully, you’ve as yet been unsuccessful.

dover_beach

5 Mar 13 at 12:36 am
Carry-over from open thread:

Apparently you think ownership of a pet is equivalent to a contract with that pet. Now who’s silly?

Now why would I think that? I was addressing directly why you thought marriage must be a contract. Why, again, must it be that? Is there something in the nature of marriage that requires it to be only ever a relationship between human beings, and yet not a relationship between the sexes? At the moment your answer is rather circular: why not human-nonhuman marriage? Because marriage is contractual and thereby consensual. Why? Because it is a relationship between human beings. Why? Because it is a contract.

dover_beach

5 Mar 13 at 1:05 am
From Yale University and the joys of moral relativism:

“During a discussion Saturday afternoon with “sexologist” Jill McDevitt, who conducts workshops on sexual topics at college campuses across the country, roughly 40 students had to reconsider their idea of “normal” in sex when asked to take anonymous surveys that yielded surprising results. Students often do not realize the difference between normative — being in the middle of the bell curve for certain behaviors — and normal, which is a judgment call, McDevitt said, adding that what is common is not necessarily good just as what is deviant is not necessarily bad.”

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/03/04/sex-weekend-examines-sexual-culture/

Ellen of Tasmania

14 Mar 13 at 11:32 am
http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/15/when-sen-rob-portman-flips-gay-marriage

Yobbo

16 Mar 13 at 4:18 pm
You have to wonder at the depth of his opinion if simply finding out his son was gay changed his mind.

dover_beach

16 Mar 13 at 4:44 pm
Ryan Anderson at the Heritage Foundation has collected some of the best amicus briefs submitted to SCOTUS in defence of marriage here.

dover_beach

16 Mar 13 at 5:24 pm
You have to wonder at the depth of his opinion if simply finding out his son was gay changed his mind.

Actually you don’t need to wonder.

His opposition was partisan and not principled.

Did his son threaten to distance himself from his Portman unless he changed his position for example?

The exact same thing happened to change the NY Upper House vote in favour of Cuomo’s characteristically misnamed ‘Marriage Equality’ legislation in that state.

In that case at least it was a betrayal of that senator’s voters.

JamesK

16 Mar 13 at 5:34 pm
“But which you do instead by demanding a SST law. Hypocrite.”

You illiterate fool, I’ve repeatedly and clearly stated my preference for their to be NO law specifically relating to marriage.

“I’m just preserving the identity of marriage as we have known it for thousands of years”

Repeating your empirically false assertion for the thousandth time doesn’t make it true. Besides, argument from tradition is a fallacy. That something is a tradition means we have to be careful about messing with it, not that it’s inviolable. Lastly, marriage has ALREADY CHANGED. I’m just proposing the law catches up to the society it purports to serve.

“Because marriage is contractual and thereby consensual. Why? Because it is a relationship between human beings.”

That’s not a step in my logic, nor anyone I’ve seen, so this supposed circularity is all in your head.

Marriage is contractual because people exchange binding promises. This also defeats your friendship and cohabitation lines of attack.

Jarrah

22 Mar 13 at 1:42 pm
Repeating your empirically false assertion for the thousandth time doesn’t make it true. Besides, argument from tradition is a fallacy. That something is a tradition means we have to be careful about messing with it, not that it’s inviolable. Lastly, marriage has ALREADY CHANGED. I’m just proposing the law catches up to the society it purports to serve.

It’s empirically false to assert that marriage has been for thousands of years a relationship between the sexes? No, it isn’t empirically false. BTW, I’m not making an argument from tradition which should be obvious given the argument you’ve just criticized.

That’s not a step in my logic, nor anyone I’ve seen, so this supposed circularity is all in your head.

Marriage is contractual because people exchange binding promises.

LOL. In other words, marriage is contractual because it is consensual. Again, this argument is unavailable to you. Why must people “exchange binding promises” here? Because, that is what what they’ve always done in marriages? Effectively, the only way you can sustain this argument against human-nonhuman marriages is by reference to what you call an argument from tradition which is in part what I pointed out. Apparently, this element of marriage is inviolable but the element that involves it being a relationship between the sexes is not. Why this is the case remains mysterious.

dover_beach

22 Mar 13 at 2:22 pm
“It’s empirically false to assert that marriage has been for thousands of years a relationship between the sexes?”

Did I say that? No. You’re asserting an unchanging social institution. That’s self-evidently false.

“BTW, I’m not making an argument from tradition”

LOL. You’re retroactively imposing a ‘coherence’ argument based on the traditional understanding of marriage. If anyone’s being circular, it’s you.

“In other words, marriage is contractual because it is consensual. ”

No, consensuality is part and parcel of making binding promises, but it’s not the sole component by a long shot.

“Effectively, the only way you can sustain this argument against human-nonhuman marriages is by reference to what you call an argument from tradition”

No, because I’m not RELYING on argument from tradition. I’m saying there’s a functionality in place that supplements the traditional aspect. That’s what your argument is lacking.

“Why this is the case remains mysterious.”

Not at all. You’re assuming all features of marriage have equal standing. I can point to relevant and functional aspects, you can only point to aspects that USED to be relevant and functional, but are NO LONGER.

Done that survey of friends and relatives yet? If not, why not? Afraid that people will say marriage has a meaning that diverges from your procreation-centric viewpoint?

Jarrah

24 Mar 13 at 1:19 am
Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: ‘Sure, Who Cares’

m0nty

27 Mar 13 at 9:46 am
Did I say that?

Yes, you did. If you weren’t sure about what I meant by the identity of marriage, you should have asked me to clarify.

You’re asserting an unchanging social institution. That’s self-evidently false.

No, I’m not asserting that this – or any -social institution doesn’t change. I’m asserting that those features that are essential to the identity of that social institutions do not change while the features that are not essential may change.

LOL. You’re retroactively imposing a ‘coherence’ argument based on the traditional understanding of marriage. If anyone’s being circular, it’s you.

Very strange. So now I’m not arguing from tradition but from coherence? But, anyway, that isn’t circular, Jarrah, since the purpose of ‘imposing’ coherence upon the practice of marriage, and our understanding of the practice, is to determine which traditional features are essential and which are not essential. That is what arguments from coherence do.

No, because I’m not RELYING on argument from tradition. I’m saying there’s a functionality in place that supplements the traditional aspect. That’s what your argument is lacking.

What ‘functionality’? You just argued that consensuality ‘supplements’ the fact that traditionally marriage involves making binding promises. Requirements aren’t functions or supplements. And as to this idea that functions are lacking in my argument, what do you think I mean when I say that marriage – aside from its unitive aspects – is orientated towards the generation, custody, care and education of children? Do you really think that I’m not intending to convey the idea that marriage performs several functions by contributing to these ends? Functions best and most efficaciously provided by marriage. And that these ends are, it is argued, reflected in the coherence of the conditions spelled out previously?

Not at all. You’re assuming all features of marriage have equal standing. I can point to relevant and functional aspects, you can only point to aspects that USED to be relevant and functional, but are NO LONGER.

You’re making two unrelated arguments here. I’ve never made the first. As to the second, I am pointing to relevant and functional (Oh, so now I am making arguments that involve functionality) features of marriage. Marriage remains, undisputedly, an exclusive and permanent relationship. Only those that support traditional marriage can provide an in-principle reason why such a relationship is exclusive and permanent, and that is because it is a relationship between the sexes,where all of these features are orientated towards love (unitivity) and family (procreativity). Proponents of SSM cannot because you and they believe it is a relationship between persons that simply involves the sentiment of love and sexual attraction and there is simply no in-principle reason why such a relationship need be exclusive or permanent, particularly where it involves a SSR.

Done that survey of friends and relatives yet? If not, why not?

Because I don’t conduct surveys in order to determine what are correct or incorrect beliefs. But if I did conduct a survey, I’d think that the results would show that they believe marriage is orientated towards love and family, even those that might erroneously support SSM.

Afraid that people will say marriage has a meaning that diverges from your procreation-centric viewpoint?

Not at all. I’ve always argued that marriage serves two principle ends (love and family), ends which are themselves related and give marriage its identity. It’s the proponents of SSM that want to rend one from the other and by doing so fundamentally change and dissolve the institution.

dover_beach

27 Mar 13 at 7:56 pm
Seen on twitter today:

By calling it “traditional marriage” you’ve already ceded the ground that there is another type of marriage.

Interesting thought …

Matt

28 Mar 13 at 2:52 pm
The Death of the Family
Mark Steyn.

Gay marriage? It came up at dinner Down Under this time last year, and the prominent Aussie politician on my right said matter-of-factly, “It’s not about expanding marriage, it’s about destroying marriage.”

That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a “meaningless piece of paper” or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting it’s a universal human right. They’ve figured out what, say, terrorist-turned-educator Bill Ayers did — that, when it comes to destroying core civilizational institutions, trying to blow them up is less effective than hollowing them out from within.

Rudiau

30 Mar 13 at 3:43 pm
Effectively, the only way you can sustain this argument against human-nonhuman marriages is by reference to what you call an argument from tradition which is in part what I pointed out.

The advocates of beagle marriage (ie the equivalence of gays and dogs) need to come clean on whether they believe homosexuality should be criminalised or bestiality legalised.

sdfc

30 Mar 13 at 4:37 pm
“It’s not about expanding marriage, it’s about destroying marriage.”

In the 1970s the family was to be replaced by the state nanny. Now marriage is to be replaced by ssmarriage.

stackja

30 Mar 13 at 7:56 pm
The final word on homosexual marriage — If any given individual tells me that one guy sloshing his fully erect penis around in some other guy’s feces-filled colon is “normal”… obviously I’m not the one understanding what “normal” is.

An excreta-encrusted shlong should never be confused for a moral compass.

From a fb friend.

I’m just throwin’ it out there. This guy has a unique way of putting things, I think.

nilk

31 Mar 13 at 7:50 pm
I”m crossposting the following on the marriage thread too. From one my favourite sites, Bad Catholic in another fine post points out a recent defence of the methodological decisions of the Regnerus study (NFFS).

dover_beach

6 Apr 13 at 9:42 pm
In the same post, he points to the following occurances, self-marriage in North Dakota, and women that ‘marry’ objects.

dover_beach

6 Apr 13 at 9:43 pm
Dover thinks gays are mentally ill. Who would have thought.

sdfc

6 Apr 13 at 9:46 pm
I don’t know where you got that from, sdfc.

nilk

6 Apr 13 at 10:05 pm
Marrying an object seems to me a sign of mental illness.

sdfc

6 Apr 13 at 10:07 pm
But people do it these days.

nilk

6 Apr 13 at 10:17 pm
“I’m asserting that those features that are essential to the identity of that social institutions do not change”

Now your circularity becomes obvious. They’re unchanging because they’re essential and they’re essential because they’re unchanging!

“What ‘functionality’?”

The purposes of the institution. Marriage exists because it serves personal and social functions. Many of these, in various places and various times, have had nothing to do with love or family (in the sense of having children). The functions marriage serves, and therefore the features it has, have changed over time.

Your entire argument is that the features that haven’t changed until recently are the core or essential features. This is a fallacy, and the key problem with argument-from-tradition.

“Marriage remains, undisputedly, an exclusive and permanent relationship.”

I’m starting to get tired of this self-evidently false assertion you make. Ever heard of divorce? Permanence is therefore not one of your essential features. Exclusivity has a stronger claim, but not an absolute one. For reference, read the Bible. Plenty of non-exclusive marriage types (assuming you mean exclusive to two people).

“Proponents of SSM cannot [provide an in-principle reason why such a relationship is exclusive and permanent]”

More circularity. We don’t have to, because we don’t recognise those features as essential.

“Because I don’t conduct surveys in order to determine what are correct or incorrect beliefs.”

When it comes to social institutions, which are defined by how society practices them, there’s simply no other way to determine what is the correct ‘belief’ about them. They have no existence apart from the conduct of people. You can’t reason a correct belief about them from first principles.

“But if I did conduct a survey, I’d think that the results would show that they believe marriage is orientated towards love and family”

I agree. Nothing about love and family that requires two sexes, though, which you insultingly refuse to acknowledge.

Jarrah

7 Apr 13 at 1:40 pm
“Bad Catholic in another fine post”

An interesting one, at least. Inevitably he falls victim to the marriage=children fallacy.

“a recent defence of the methodological decisions of the Regnerus study”

Every defence ends up admitting the obvious – he didn’t study same-sex parenting, but broken homes.

Jarrah

7 Apr 13 at 1:47 pm
When it comes to social institutions, which are defined by how society practices them, there’s simply no other way to determine what is the correct ‘belief’ about them. They have no existence apart from the conduct of people. You can’t reason a correct belief about them from first principles.

The law shapes society, society shapes the law. Are you saying that if a majority opposed SSM it would therefore be right for them to do so?

By the time we’re done with non-permanence, non-exclusivity, open to any two consulting adults, what we have is a business partnership. Why have a category for marriage if it has no characteristics?

wreckage

8 Apr 13 at 8:42 pm
Not a rhetorical question.

wreckage

8 Apr 13 at 8:43 pm
Because that would be too callous, Wreckage. Not very romantic. These days it’s only supposed to be about lerv.

nilk

8 Apr 13 at 9:21 pm
The best argument against gay marriage I have ever seen is the claim that it is correlated with black family breakdown, neo-Stalinism, and the NHS. Nothing anyone puts up against gay marriage from now on can possibly beat that.

Fisky

9 Apr 13 at 3:45 am
“Are you saying that if a majority opposed SSM it would therefore be right for them to do so?”

It’s not about right and wrong, by dover’s own terminology. But to be clear, social institutions are by definition majoritarian.

“Why have a category for marriage if it has no characteristics?”

I have never contended it has no special characteristics. Don’t repeat dover’s verballing of me.

Marriage is the closest possible relationship between unrelated people. It’s not friendship, it’s not cohabitation, it’s not a business partnership (although historically that has been a common rationale and core function of the practice – so much for love and family being unchanging characteristics!). How people define that closest possible relationship is up to them, not the law. Get the government out of marriage.

Jarrah

9 Apr 13 at 9:46 pm
A legalistic and historical overview from our indomitable Helen:

http://reason.org/files/an_argument_for_equal_marriage.pdf

A concise argument from a different angle, Chris Berg explains why supporting marriage equality is inherently conservative:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4618162.html

Jarrah

9 Apr 13 at 9:53 pm
I dunno, Fisky. Gay marriage could help bring the family closer together.

nilk

9 Apr 13 at 9:55 pm
No, I’m not supporting anyone’s verballing. Sorry if it came across that way. I’m just trying to get my head around your definition.

As for business, it’s an unchanging characteristic of family, so I don’t quite get what you’re saying.

How people define that closest possible relationship is up to them, not the law.

So it doesn’t have any necessary characteristics? I thought a major argument for was equal consideration and protection under the law, an argument I find reasonable and compelling. If there are no legal characteristics of marriage then it’s not even a class of contract. Surely it is reasonable to expect that there will be necessary legal characteristics of, say, heterosexual breeding pairs, leaving aside words like “marriage”?

Are you simply arguing for marriage to be abolished as a legal construct?

wreckage

9 Apr 13 at 10:16 pm
“So it doesn’t have any necessary characteristics?”

They exist, but they are determined by majority persistent practice. That’s what a social institution means. They have been in flux since the year dot, and SSM is just the latest wrinkle.

“I thought a major argument for was equal consideration and protection under the law, an argument I find reasonable and compelling.”

That’s for SSM marriage advocates who want the legislative privileges to be doled out equally. That’s not me. I can understand them doing that, though – they’re acculturated to having government be a dominant figure in this as in so much else.

“Are you simply arguing for marriage to be abolished as a legal construct?”

I’m arguing that it shouldn’t be treated any differently by government than any other contract. The legal construction would be up to the parties, and given our biology, history and culture, marriage will have quite distinct characteristics that separate it from common-or-garden contracts.

Jarrah

9 Apr 13 at 11:05 pm
Ah, okay.

wreckage

11 Apr 13 at 9:47 pm
Fine article by Brendan O’Neill who writes:

“Anyone who values diversity of thought and tolerance of dissent should find the sweeping consensus on gay marriage terrifying.”

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13518/

Viva

11 Apr 13 at 11:36 pm
The legal construction would be up to the parties, and given our biology, history and culture

You know that will never happen, right? I mean, it’s accepted that marriage MUST be dissoluble by one party, without consensus, or loss of rights by that party. Marriage as currently legally constituted is something of a farce as far as contracts go, and the family courts nothing BUT a farce; and I say that from the perspective of someone who does not think the family court is biased towards women.

wreckage

12 Apr 13 at 12:58 am
I recently read a very intelligent and quite humourous article by Iowahawk on the whole subject.
Presented for your edification:
SSM

Polymath

17 Apr 13 at 10:23 am
Looks like NZ is the next in line to fall ….

it is a relationship between human beings.

As Brendan O’Neill points out, marriage is much more than that – it is an institution which links us to the past and extends those links into the future; it extends laterally in the present forming the network of blood links that form families binding people together and forming the basic building blocks of society.

That is why marriage is much more than simply a relationship between two people. It incorporates many people. It is not a dead end; it leads into the future. It is an institution which springs from the amazing creative power derived from the union between a man and a woman.

Viva

17 Apr 13 at 1:26 pm
NZ has gone over…. now for the consequences

http://www.republican.co.nz/Consequences.html

Viva

18 Apr 13 at 12:00 am
Marriage is related to religion, but we have a separation between church and state, and the public debate should be about the extent to which the state recognises marriage and grants benefits to married couples.

My first instinct is that the state should have nothing to do with marriage – that it should be left to the individuals who might choose to marry, and the private institutions through which they might choose to consecrate their union.

But marriage is not just about the choices of two (or more) adults! It represents the arrangement that is granted the blessing of society for the basis of the family, that is, for the solemn responsibility of raising the next generation. It is in this connection that the state has a legitimate interest in relationships between adults. We have a collective responsibility to ensure that children are raised in a salubrious, mainstream environment conducive to the social world of the species, which survives and thrives only because of its heterosexuality. And that means the complimentary yin and yang of a mother and a father. That normal couples sometimes fall short of the ideal is not a reason to abandon the ideal and thereby guarantee that it recedes still further.

Metropole

18 Apr 13 at 5:11 am
That normal couples sometimes fall short of the ideal is not a reason to abandon the ideal and thereby guarantee that it recedes still further.

Well said. That there are few articulate public advocates for marriage is a symptom of our decadence. That void has bred a generation who mouth simplistic platitudes such as “love is love” and are unable to think or understand beyond this sentimental pablum.

We have failed utterly to pass on what is valuable to the next generation by actions and words. We see the result – especially amongst the so called “educated” class who should know better.

Viva

18 Apr 13 at 12:20 pm
Man and woman, they marry, they have children, they care for children.
This has happened since when? We do not know. Why change? What is the advantage? To me there are many disadvantages.

stackja

18 Apr 13 at 10:03 pm
I am delighted to note that Barry O’Farrell is now for gay marriage, along with Campbell Newman and other far-sighted center-right leaders. I now predict that Tony Abbott will legislate for gay marriage in 2014/2015, although this may be a little hasty – it would be better left to his second term.

Fisky

19 Apr 13 at 1:38 am
Tony Abbott this morning with Faine… “Our next policy will be decided by the party room after the next election” and “this is a sigificant move on our behalf”

Or words to that effect…

mct

19 Apr 13 at 10:30 am
Barry O’Farrell should stick to fixing up the NSW transport system. And leave ssmarriage to another day next century.

stackja

19 Apr 13 at 11:12 am
I am delighted to note that Barry O’Farrell is now for gay marriage, along with Campbell Newman and other far-sighted center-right leaders. I now predict that Tony Abbott will legislate for gay marriage in 2014/2015, although this may be a little hasty – it would be better left to his second term.

Apparently “commitment” is now O’Farrell’s criteria for entering into the state of marriage. Well there are a fair few people I am committed to one way or another but I hardly think that’s a reason to considerat any of them them as a potential marriage partner. The fact that I consider the notion of two blokes marrying each other as a ridiculous proposition has nothing to do with their being homosexual. It has everything to do with their being two blokes!

Viva

19 Apr 13 at 4:05 pm
It has everything to do with their being two blokes!

Or two sheilas.

stackja

19 Apr 13 at 7:12 pm
Now you’re talking.

sdfc

19 Apr 13 at 7:16 pm
I now predict that Tony Abbott will legislate for gay marriage in 2014/2015, although this may be a little hasty – it would be better left to his second term.

Pyne was setting the ground for that today saying that although Coalition policy is against same sex marriage and so they would not be supporting it during this term of government, that there was no such policy set yet for the next term. So I can see it as entirely possible that Abbott will allow a concience vote – though I would guess it would be a private member’s bill rather than pushed by Abbott personally.

Chris

19 Apr 13 at 7:36 pm
It has everything to do with their being two blokes! Or two sheilas. stackja
19 Apr 13 at 7:12 pm Now you’re talking. sdfc
19 Apr 13 at 7:16 pm

So the two blokes get together with the two sheilas. They have babies. Later DOCS take the babies into care. Another happy family story.

stackja

20 Apr 13 at 3:08 pm
Thanks Viva, that is a great article by Brendan O’Neill. This one by Christopher Caldwell, author of the great “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe” on the Islamist threat, is also well reasoned. Those who are really concerned for gays in the West ought to read that book.

However both of them could have made the implications of normality more explicit. If marriage is an institution that encapsulates socially-approved human norms of romantic love, conjugal commitment, procreation, family, and the socialisation of the next generation; and if marriage ought to be for heterosexual couples, which I along with O’Neill and Caldwell believe it should – the this whole complex of things ought also properly to be the preserve of heterosexual couples. Gay love should not be seen as the equal of normal love. Gays should not be allowed to adopt or raise children. Laws that treat gay couples similarly to normal couples should be repealed. Governments should not give special dispensations to celebrations of gayness, for example Mardi Gras.

O’Neill is right that the demand for gay marriage has been engineered from above by a bunch of elite moral poseurs relying on shame and the sheen of judicial irreproachability rather than rational argument amidst the demos. As Caldwell says, “Either opinion is not changing as fast as it appears to be, or society is not as free.” In fact it’s a bit of both. Although the gay marriage cause is only a couple of decades old, its road was cleared by the steady evisceration of marriage by feminism beginning in the 1960s. No wonder people think gay marriage is no big deal; they don’t know what marriage is.

Metropole

20 Apr 13 at 5:09 pm
(reposting this from the OT)

The gay marriage debate takes place in an alternate reality where marriage is a robust and well functioning institution. it’s not, for a host of reasons. And ‘branding’ isn’t one… the argument that gay marriage will somehow make marriage respectable again won’t wash; because the problems with the institution are real and to do with the legal mechanics.

There is a bigger issue than gay marriage, and that is the institution of marriage generally. Marriage itself is broken and in need of radical and urgent reform.

dd

21 Apr 13 at 7:58 am
“Marriage itself is broken and in need of radical and urgent reform.”

What are the major problems, and what solutions do you suggest?

Jarrah

21 Apr 13 at 8:50 am
I’d say no fault divorce is the biggest problem.

When else can you sign a contract and then break it just because you feel differently to what you used to?

nilk

21 Apr 13 at 8:57 am
What are the major problems,

One problem is that in this age of fast paced change, experimentation with identity and hyperindividualism, young people see everything from jobs, to place of residence to relationships as inherently temporary. Everything is subject to change.

The concept of gay “marriage” fits neatly into this paradigm – much more so than marriage as we have always known it. Complementary sex roles and sexual identity have previously been enshrined in marriage. So have notions of permanence, faithfulness and self sacrifice. In gay “marriage” sex roles are redundant, sexual identity fluid and self constructed, faithfulness is optional and childlessness enables a quicker, more pain free exit.

But marriage as a traditional instituion has already been been challenged by today’s hyper-individualism and hunger for self expression through change and experimentation. Sex roles have become more ambiguous as women became breadwinners. The kids just have to fit around the priorities of their parents.

So marriage as it has now become would suit many gay people down to the ground. The shifting sands of many of their relationships simply mirror the shifting sands of many of our own.

Viva

21 Apr 13 at 5:21 pm
What are the major problems, and what solutions do you suggest?

* it’s effectively a contract in which your assets are blended with another’s, yet this ‘contract’ has no penalty for breach.

* participants can’t set the terms of the contract; even pre-nups are not guaranteed to stand up in a court of law. Plus I can imagine a range of innovations that would be totally impossible under current law

* The state will deem you to have entered a contract, regardless of whether you wanted to or not.
This ‘contract creep’ if I can coin a phrase, is the biggest one. Deeming people to be in marriages or marriage-like relationships has, on its own, multiple undesirable consequence.
- it produces much pernicious litigation;
- it provides a mechanism for deception in order to gain assets;
- it muddies the water as to who is, and who is not, in a contractual arrangement with whom.

I hope that the shape of the solutions are somewhat evident from the description of the problems.

dd

21 Apr 13 at 7:03 pm
This ‘contract creep’ if I can coin a phrase, is the biggest one. Deeming people to be in marriages or marriage-like relationships has, on its own, multiple undesirable consequence.
- it produces much pernicious litigation;
- it provides a mechanism for deception in order to gain assets;
- it muddies the water as to who is, and who is not, in a contractual arrangement with whom.

…I would like to add, DD, if you may allow me, in the words of JC…it encourages “pump and dump” (lets assume marriage is pro social and it effectively discourages marriage) and “why the fuck would a young guy want to get married now because he has been totally and utterly emasculated by the courts”…

A good analysis DD. I really think this is where abolishing the marriage act etc becomes obviously desirable.

.

21 Apr 13 at 7:09 pm
Except dot, the common law recognizing de facto marriages is implicated in each of dd’s points.

dover_beach

21 Apr 13 at 7:18 pm
The law recognising de facto relationships isn’t common law, it is legislation (in NSW anyway).

See the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW)

Huh? Are you seriously arguing that everyone married under common law…were not actually married because they didn’t have your religious preferences?

.

21 Apr 13 at 7:24 pm
Except dot, the common law recognizing de facto marriages is implicated in each of dd’s points.

That’s just plain wrong anyway. Common law marriages did not make pre nuptial agreements ultra vires, even if they look like they are impossible prima facie. You cannot dismiss the possibility of constructive trusts etc.

Do not even consider the argument of telling courts what constructive trusts they do and do not recognise, they have basically ignored legislation doing the same, and rightly so – such laws are unworkable.

.

21 Apr 13 at 7:26 pm
The law recognising de facto relationships isn’t common law, it is legislation

Well, the only difference is that the latter requires that “The parties must hold themselves out to the world as husband and wife…”

But, anyway, in Australia I don’t think that is true. It appears that the common law inconsistently recognized de facto relationships and that this was systemtized by state and federal legislation from the 1980s onwards.

Huh? Are you seriously arguing that everyone married under common law…were not actually married because they didn’t have your religious preferences?

dot, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

dover_beach

21 Apr 13 at 7:40 pm
dot, can you outline again what problems you saw with the DOMA and Proposition 8 cases. I saw a series of comment of yours, maybe two weeks back, but over the course of reading what you wrote could not make heads or tails of just where you stood by the end.

dover_beach

21 Apr 13 at 7:45 pm
Seek qualified legal advice.

.

21 Apr 13 at 8:56 pm
I don’t think I need to. If a couple meet the conditions as set-out they would be thought of as de facto married and given this may be the subject of: pernicious litigation; deception in order to gain assets; as well as muddying the waters about who is and who isn’t in such a relationship.

dover_beach

21 Apr 13 at 10:13 pm
It’s not often you hear the truth from people who lie about their agendas, but here’s an instance in which gay activist, Masha Gessen, admits “we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change”

“Institution of marriage should not exist” – Gay activist admits ‘we lie’ that marriage won’t change.

It’s not about tolerance or acceptance, nor has it ever been. “We just want to get married too…” has always been a lie and it’s unfortunate that people on our side like Bill O’Reilly find it to be such a compelling argument. But this is just a smaller piece to a greater goal of tearing down the pillars of western civilization through cultural Marxism.

Rudiau

29 Apr 13 at 5:35 pm
Excellent article by Charles Moore:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10049451/David-Cameron-would-like-to-forget-gay-marriage-but-it-will-haunt-him.html

Viva

11 May 13 at 8:37 am
Jeremy Irons, the Oscar-winning actor, has provoked outrage by suggesting that same sex marriage laws could allow fathers to marry their sons to avoid paying inheritance tax.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9972011/Jeremy-Irons-claims-gay-marriage-laws-could-lead-to-a-father-marrying-his-son.html

UK Equalities Minister Mrs Miller confirmed to MPs and peers on the committee that friends of the same sex would be free to marry under the Bill, in order to boost their pension, property and inheritance rights, even if they had no intention of having a romantic relationship with each other.

There is currently no “legal requirement” for any marriage to be consummated and nothing stops friends of the opposite sex from marrying now, she said.
“We all know that marriages are very different for different people but there is no change that will be effected by this Bill,” the minister added.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10057355/Maria-Miller-gay-marriage-Bill-to-be-changed-to-protect-Army-chaplains.html

PS Irons has since humbly recanted his views.

Viva

20 May 13 at 1:00 pm
So now there’s nothing stopping you guys marrying your best mate. Platonic marriage – the ultimate statement of mateship!

Viva

20 May 13 at 1:37 pm
So now there’s nothing stopping you guys marrying your best mate. Platonic marriage – the ultimate statement of mateship!

I just have this amusing image of a bloke getting down on one knee to ask if a guy wants to be his best mate.

Fleeced

20 May 13 at 9:26 pm
“it’s effectively a contract in which your assets are blended with another’s, yet this ‘contract’ has no penalty for breach.”

That’s not true. Penalties include terminating the contract, alimony, and child support. Ideally people would be able to set whatever penalties they liked.

“participants can’t set the terms of the contract”

They can and do, however government interferes and sets terms of its own, like it having to be between a man and a woman. Naturally I would like to have the parties set all of their own terms – this is the essence of marriage privatisation.

“even pre-nups are not guaranteed to stand up in a court of law.”

Pre-nuptial agreements are overturned by the same principles that overturn other ‘unfair’ contracts. This happens to wills as well.

“The state will deem you to have entered a contract, regardless of whether you wanted to or not.”

Another argument for privatisation.

“I hope that the shape of the solutions are somewhat evident from the description of the problems.”

Quite so.

Jarrah

21 May 13 at 6:28 pm
I just have this amusing image of a bloke getting down on one knee to ask if a guy wants to be his best mate.

… instead of being his best man lol.

Viva

22 May 13 at 2:23 pm

Catallaxy Files

Debate Marriage here

485 Responses to 'Debate Marriage here'

Leave a Reply

Liberty Quotes

Ongoing Debates

Catallaxy Surveys

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Archives

Pages

Blogroll

Meta

Catallaxy Files

Debate Marriage here

Share this:

485 Responses to 'Debate Marriage here'

Leave a Reply

Liberty Quotes

Ongoing Debates

Catallaxy Surveys

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Archives

Pages

Blogroll

Meta