Peter Saunders on gay marriage

Peter Saunders is the only sensible sociologist I know so when he writes on issues such as gay marriage it is worthwhile carefully considering his view.

Two thoughts strike me about all this.
One is Friedrich Hayek’s warning about the vanity of the intellectuals. Intellectuals are affronted by social institutions (such as free markets and monogamous marriage) that have evolved over hundreds or thousands of years without people like them ever having consciously invented or designed them. They think evolved institutions are not ‘rational,’ and they believe they can do better. The only argument for leaving marriage unreformed is that it has been this way for a very long time, but that is never going to win the day with ‘modernisers,’ in whose ranks we have to include Prime Minister ‘Dave’ Cameron.

The second thought is that gay marriage will not bring the bourgeois social order crashing down, but it is one more step in Antonio Gramsci’s call in the 1930s for a revolutionary ‘march through the institutions.’ Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, realised that Western capitalism would not be destroyed by economic class struggle, for it is good at meeting people’s material needs. What was needed, therefore, was a long-term campaign against the core institutions through which bourgeois culture is transmitted to each generation. Break the hold of the churches, take over the media, subvert the schools and universities, and chip away at the heart of the citadel, the bourgeois family, and eventually, the whole system will fall.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

297 Responses to Peter Saunders on gay marriage

  1. Amfortas says:

    Yep. The marching Cultural-Marxists must be getting foot-sore by now.

  2. coz says:

    It’s a war of words, the world was created by The Word.

  3. Adam Kane says:

    Three other points. 1. The debate ignores the decline in marriage. 2. Reformists don’t seem to be able to articulate what marriage is. 3. This is being done in a needlessly divisive way.

    1. The debate on same-sex-marriage seems to be occurring in a parallel universe where the institution of marriage is strong and robust; all heterosexual couples are enjoying the fruits of marriage; where young people think just as highly of marriage as previous generations; where marriage offers fair legal protection to all those who enter it; where couples who do get married never get screwed over by the legal apparatus surrounding it.

    None of these things are true. In fact, marriage is on the decline. The institution itself is in decline and dire need of reform on several fronts. The current situation is basically one of common law drift. There has been no well-thought-out policy reform for some time.

    2. Second, and related to that, if we are to examine relationships that cannot enjoy the status of marriage, we must look more widely than just gay couples. If the boundaries must be re-drawn, then surely you need to articulate a principled reason for the new boundary. It’s not good enough to do a patchwork fix (“and gays”) and explain that it’s better than the previous system.

    Okay, so polygamists will still be excluded. Incestuous couples will still be excluded. Fine, but just humour us and please explain why. For the record. If you can’t think of a reason why, then you obviously don’t have a coherent theory of what marriage is. And you don’t have a coherent theory, then what is your basis for demanding reform?

    3. If you want to unite, not divide, then the way to do this is to promise that there will be no knock-on effects for straight marriage. If you want to simply demonise conservatives, then by all means, stay silent and make no such concessions.
    I want to hear the SSM advocate say “Heterosexual marriage institutions WILL NOT be affected by same-sex-marriage.” For instance, will the terms “husband” and “wife” still be legal terms? Will they continue to appear on certificates? (I personally dont’ care if they do or not but social conservatives do. The point is, if you want to do a reform, you bring as many people as you can with you, rather than making it a confrontation with your percieved ideological enemies). What about birth certificates. Still mother and father? Simple questions to answer. But I’ve never heard them asked or answered.

  4. rafiki says:

    OK, what I suggest is: 1) redraft the Commonwealth Marriage Act (and all other Cth laws and administrative policies) to substitute ‘civil union’ for ‘marriage’, and 2) remove from Cth laws, etc all instances of recognition of some other kind of coupling arrangement, such as ‘de facto marriage’, or living in a marriage-ilke relationship’ etc. This would deal with any merit in the ‘lack of equality before the law’ argument, and end rorts and rackets that rely on manipulating status to achieve a benefit or an immunity. [There is the question of whether the Cth has power to regulate ‘marriage-like relationships’, but if there is (unlikely I think), it will sink any ‘same-sex marriage’ law.]

    There needs be a scheme for licensing persons or bodies to follow a specified process that ends up with two people in a civil union.

    The churches and other religious bodies would be free to conduct a service that ends with two people ‘marrying’, and to say who can get married. Other persons or bodies might of course do the same, but this cannot be stopped.

  5. Adam Kane says:

    There needs be a scheme for licensing persons or bodies to follow a specified process that ends up with two people in a civil union.

    Yeah, exactly.
    The law has drifted and currently there are all kinds of personal arrangements that get recognised as marriage-like. The people entering those arrangements often don’t understand the legal implications. It’s a mess. And you have the absurd situation of Centrelink policing whether or not flatmates are having sex with each other, because it changes their marital status (and therefore how much money they’re entitled to).

  6. JamesK says:

    With gay adoption already legal, I can think of no good, logical arguments against also allowing gay marriage.

    Firstly that depends on the gay adoption law provisions which apparently in Britain disallow discrimination on the basis of whether the marriage is same sex or heterosexual whith the consequent forced self-closure of adoption agencies who would morally prefer to adopt children preferentially to married couples all things being equal.

    It’s a classic leftist ploy of winning the entirety by incrementalism and Peter Saunders is rolling over.

    But it doesn’t make the best interests of orphan children arguments against SSM any less valid.

    Nor does it make the arguments of SSM being the continuation of leftist undermining of marriage in western culture with the perverse result of female feticide evident even in England and the USA now and a culture in catastrophic demographic decline with 90% of black american children born out of wedlock with catostrophic social results and the majority of children in the USA born to women under 30 are born to single parent households again with dreadful social and cultural implications that cannot be fully yet realised or realisable

    Peter Saunders an obviously intelligent man is actively deluding himself.

    It’s far more depressing than the usual inane two arguments in favour of ssm namely ‘a human rights’argument and a sympathy argument that gay couples are deprived of the ‘romance’ of marriage over a civil union

  7. Infidel Tiger says:

    With gay adoption already legal, I can think of no good, logical arguments against also allowing gay marriage.

    Be a lot easier to ban gay adoption.

  8. Louis Hissink says:

    It’s basically Fabianism under the Italian Mob.

  9. Rodney says:

    Surely its time for supporting the ZLF, The Zoosexual Liberation Front.
    People should be free to mary any vspecies they choose.

  10. john malpas says:

    I expect that sooner or later Islam will actively sort it all out. They tend to be vigorous about ideology.

  11. Samuel J says:

    Now judges are ordering the names of gay couples to be put on birth certificates. That’s outrageous: a birth certificate is supposed to record a fact. Listing two lesbians when one cannot possibly have contributed any DNA strikes me as a step into la la land.

  12. Abu Chowdah says:

    Still, listing couples will make it easier to round them up and ship them to Tasmania which by then will be the independent gay republic of Croomistan.

  13. Viva says:

    It’s the rate of change in the world that seems to be an irrestistable tide – not that long ago in the sixties living together was frowned upon and single mothers were pressured to surrender their babies for adoption. People whispered about homosexuality behind their hands. We are now heading off in the other direction a million miles an hour.

    We are on a roller coaster ride folks – it won’t be too long before we have the option of a 10 year marriage contract subject to renewal. The Muslims already have the option of temporary marriages – so yes, maybe they can set up an advisory panel.

  14. coz says:

    Still, listing couples will make it easier to round them up and ship them to Tasmania which by then will be the independent gay republic of Croomistan

    Nooooooo. It’s too cold for em, they get rained on.

  15. Peter Patton says:

    Samuel

    That’s outrageous: a birth certificate is supposed to record a fact. Listing two lesbians when one cannot possibly have contributed any DNA strikes me as a step into la la land.

    Do read up on your Roman history.

  16. ar says:

    Yep. The marching Cultural-Marxists must be getting foot-sore by now.

    They are tireless.

  17. JamesK says:

    Do read up on your Roman history.

    This sort of facile smart-arsery is fast becoming the norm for Peter Patton.

    Enagage in debate with fellow commenters as an adult Peter and fashion an argument or just fuck off.

  18. Adam Kane says:

    a birth certificate is supposed to record a fact.

    Facts are not relative. Legal rulings cannot change the facts. If you have a biological father, and your father is male, then a government bureaucrat at the registry, or a magistrate, cannot change your ancestral link to that man.

  19. “Break the hold of the churches, take over the media, subvert the schools and universities, and chip away at the heart of the citadel, the bourgeois family, and eventually, the whole system will fall.”

    Though surely the gay marriage movement is the idea of the bourgeois family triumphant? There has always been a conservative contradiction between denouncing the “promiscuous gay lifestyle” and then opposing opening an institution that aims to entrench monogamy to gays.

  20. ar says:

    There won’t be true marriage equality until the first gay arranged marriage.

  21. Adam Kane says:

    This sort of facile smart-arsery is fast becoming the norm for Peter Patton

    On this occasion James I completely agree with you. “facile smart-arsery” is a word perfect description.

  22. Adam Kane says:

    Though surely the gay marriage movement is the idea of the bourgeois family triumphant?

    No, because they have no interest in reforming a broken institution, other than to expand its reach.

  23. coz says:

    Well yous shouldn’t have made such a fetish out of it! Moths to a flame.

  24. dover_beach says:

    There has always been a conservative contradiction between denouncing the “promiscuous gay lifestyle” and then opposing opening an institution that aims to entrench monogamy to gays.

    Not at all. It would only be contradictory if you imagined that marriage was only an exclusive relationship. And even that is not conceded by supporters of gay ‘marriage’.

  25. “Break the hold of the churches, take over the media, subvert the schools and universities, and chip away at the heart of the citadel, the bourgeois family, and eventually, the whole system will fall.”

    Why do they want the system to fall? What will replace it? What we have is the result of thousands of years of evolutionary development. Can better ways of living be planned by those who claim to be the most intelligent?

  26. In practice, marriage is not always an exclusive relationship. But that is the ideal gays (and others) are signing up to. After all, marriage has little legal meaning and its purpose is a formal, symbolic and public commitment to another person.

  27. JamesK says:

    There has always been a conservative contradiction between denouncing the “promiscuous gay lifestyle” and then opposing opening an institution that aims to entrench monogamy to gays.

    I don’t know quite where to begin.

    It’s such a mind-bogglingly stupid statement.

    Presumably civil union equates to open-SSM in Andrew Norton’s manner of thinking?

  28. davey says:

    I am a very frustrated GAY MAN who has been in a happy stable same sex relationship for twenty two years. Not only are we both completely AGAINST gay marriage, but we DON’T KNOW ANY OTHER GAY PEOPLE WHO ARE FOR IT nor do any of our straight friends who say to us we should march in the streets if we feel strongly because that is the only way we’ll be heard. The Marriage Equality lobby originated in Bob Brown’s state of Tasmania and is a self-appointed group of gays and their straight friends WHO DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE WIDER GAY COMMUNITY AND NEVER WILL. I have tried blog submissions to every newspaper site in Australia and letters to the editor of The Australian and other outlets BUT ALL MY SUBMISSIONS AND LETTERS ARE CENSORED. Why won’t anyone take any notice of the gay community at large about what we think about gay marriage which we see as a travesty for gay people. It’s extremely frustrating knowing most of the community think we gays support something WHEN WE DON’T. WE WANT A REFERENDUM ON GAY MARRIAGE BECAUSE WE THINK IT WILL FAIL.

  29. I don’t think civil unions make much sense in the Australian legal context. In other countries, there are rights/entitlements attached specifically to marriage, and so gay legal equality requires at least an equivalent institution. However in Australia de facto couples (gay or straight) are generally treated as if they were married.

  30. Adam Kane says:

    After all, marriage has little legal meaning and its purpose is a formal, symbolic and public commitment to another person.

    Uh, no, the ceremony is a “formal, symbolic and public commitment.”
    Currently, gay and lesbian couples can have that ceremony any time they like. They can walk into a wedding shop, buy wedding dresses and tuxedos, rent a hall, throw a bouquet, get drunk, the whole shebang.

    We are not discussing the right of gay couples to perform a marriage ceremony. That right already exists.

  31. Adam Kane says:

    However in Australia de facto couples (gay or straight) are generally treated as if they were married.

    They shouldn’t be. If you don’t sign a contract nor verbally agree to a contract in front of witnesses, you shouldn’t be deemed to be in one.

    That’s where the law is broken. If we want to allow SSM we should at the same time abolish de facto marriages, which make a mockery of the whole institution.

  32. dover_beach says:

    In practice, marriage is not always an exclusive relationship.

    I really don’t understand these statements. What are we to learn from marriages that, in practice, fall short of the characteristics that are typically associated with marriage? Nothing at all; well, we learn that they fall short of these characteristics. Similarly, we learn nothing about what parenthood is, for instance, by being told that, in practice, some parents do not provide the care and education we expect them to provide to their children.

    After all, marriage has little legal meaning and its purpose is a formal, symbolic and public commitment to another person.

    Well, we can ask why this relationship has come to require a “formal, symbolic and public commitment” whereas friendship, for instance, has not.

  33. Abu Chowdah says:

    Do read up on your Roman history.

    So your precedent is what? The divorce case Caligula v. Phar Lap?

    The Romans had many idiosyncrasies. Citing them as a model for marriage strikes me as being as sensible as those people who argue polyamory should be standard because squirrels and other wee beasties are always rooting around outside the nest. what an argument! Hey, dogs sniff asses and lick their own. So much for the animal kingdom argument.

  34. Abu Chowdah says:

    I really don’t understand these statements. What are we to learn from marriages that, in practice, fall short of the characteristics that are typically associated with marriage?

    I agree. People (stuoid people with an agenda) always focus on the failings of the particular to undermine issues instead of looking at the strategic, long term success of the general concept. Same with capitalism or democracy.

  35. I agree that the de facto laws have gone too far. For gay couples, it means that if they don’t want to be married the law will deem them married when it comes to a relationship breakdown (for example the art dealer couple case which the Age has been reporting recently), but if they do want to be formally married the law won’t let them.

  36. Yep. The marching Cultural-Marxists must be getting foot-sore by now.

    Libertarians are the cultural Marxists. Two mums, two dads, marry four different people of any sex, fuck your cousin or take your dog out on a date. This is all fine by the libertarian creed.

    It is the Marxism of the Right.

  37. Adam Kane says:

    I agree that the de facto laws have gone too far.

    In that case, we might have common ground. I’m not against it, but it seems like a decontextualised bubble issue. De facto marriage laws need reform. And I’d like to know in what other ways the institution will be changed. How will SSM legislation and bureaucratic process impact on current, straight marriage?

    Maybe there will be no impact. Fine. But I’d like someone to at least say that.

  38. dover_beach says:

    Re de facto situation, does the same situation hold, for instance, where two or more friends share domestic arrangements?

  39. Adam Kane says:

    does the same situation hold, for instance, where two or more friends share domestic arrangements?

    If you’re on centrelink benefits, living in a sharehouse, and have sex with someone else in the house, that can land you in a lot of trouble. Centrelink actually have officers that investigate this kind of stuff.
    So yes.

    Also, I believe the courts will treat you as effectively married if you keep it up long enough.

  40. Bruce says:

    What puzzles me is there is a simple answer to this issue.

    Just find & replace the word “marriage” with the words “civil union” in the Marriage Act of 1961.

    Then all such unions under secular Australian law would be civil unions and we can all call it whatever we want.

    Everyone would then be exactly equal under the law, which seems to be the issue causing gay people conniptions.

  41. Jarrah says:

    “the right of a child to both a mother and father”

    These damn lefty luvvies and their obsession with inventing new ‘rights’! 🙂

    But seriously, if that truly is a human right, how will it be upheld? Lose your mum to cancer, get a new one from the government?

  42. JamesK says:

    However in Australia de facto couples (gay or straight) are generally treated as if they were married.

    Really?

    And “generally” by who exactly?

    The state governments?

    The federal government?

    Entertaining Andrew Norton’s comments is like spiralling doen the proverbial rabbit hole into surreality

  43. Dandy Warhol says:

    I agree that the de facto laws have gone too far. For gay couples, it means that if they don’t want to be married the law will deem them married when it comes to a relationship breakdown (for example the art dealer couple case which the Age has been reporting recently), but if they do want to be formally married the law won’t let them.

    LOL! You couldn’t make this up.

    Libertarians are the cultural Marxists. Two mums, two dads, marry four different people of any sex, f*** your cousin or take your dog out on a date. This is all fine by the libertarian creed.

    No. Libertarians aren’t saying this is ‘all fine’. They are saying that it is not the place of the state to decide with whom consenting, law-abiding adults can or can’t choose to join into a life-long partnership.

    I sure wouldn’t want you telling me who I could or couldn’t marry, NGD, and I would hope you would feel the same about me.

  44. JamesK says:

    But seriously, if that truly is a human right, how will it be upheld? Lose your mum to cancer, get a new one from the government?

    Yet more profundity from Jarrah.

    It’s his university eduction, I’m told.

    It’s nothing to do with his very own dimwittery apparently.

  45. Quentin George says:

    Now judges are ordering the names of gay couples to be put on birth certificates. That’s outrageous: a birth certificate is supposed to record a fact. Listing two lesbians when one cannot possibly have contributed any DNA strikes me as a step into la la land.

    As soon as adoptive parents were put on birth certificates, they really stopped being “facts”. Ditto with people who get sex changes, and then got their certificates changed.

    I guess really, the only way to do things properly would be to put the actual birth details on a certificate and have it unchangeable except in the event of an actual error. Then, any thing else would be put in separate fields ie, adoptive/non-biological parents, adopted sex, etc.

    Of course you generally get this problem all the time whenever the state needs to record details of a person because those details are required to do other things. (like opening a bank account, getting a drivers license or a passport).

  46. dover_beach says:

    Adam:
    If you’re on centrelink benefits, living in a sharehouse, and have sex with someone else in the house, that can land you in a lot of trouble.

    Why does “having sex with someone else in the house” raise the matter of justice? Surely what counts is the contribution one might make to said domestic arrangements?

    Jarrah:
    But seriously, if that truly is a human right, how will it be upheld? Lose your mum to cancer, get a new one from the government?

    Seriously? Does the right of free association mean that if you lose your friends, you get a new friend from the government?

  47. James – Poor people need to worry about Centrelink treating them as if they are married. Rich people need to worry about the Family Court doing so.

    One advantage of being legally married is that it settles the issue of whether there is relationship in the eyes of the law. In the case I mentioned, the court has been hearing details of bedroom arrangements.

    People who are just friends are in principle not caught by the law.

  48. dover_beach says:

    They are saying that it is not the place of the state to decide with whom consenting, law-abiding adults can or can’t choose to join into a life-long partnership.

    And the state is currently not preventing “consenting, law-abiding adults…join in a life-long partnership”.

  49. Jarrah says:

    “Does the right of free association mean that if you lose your friends, you get a new friend from the government?”

    That’s not the equivalent right, according to Saunders. He specifically said “the right of a child to both a mother and father”. Not a right to the potential to have a mother and father. If he had said that, then gay couples would not be breaching that ‘right’.

  50. Dandy Warhol says:

    Correct, Dover!

    Nor is it the place of the state to restrict people’s use of the word ‘marriage’.

    If the Rector of a religious organisation wants to say the words ‘I now pronounce you Man and Husband’ to Terence and Phillip, that is not a legitimate concern of the state (according to libertarians).

  51. papachango says:

    Jeez can someone get NGD some professional help for his depression over his libertarian ex? Worried he might self harm.

  52. dover_beach says:

    The right of freedom of association is not a right to the potential of associating; it is simply a right to be not interfered with in this respect. Similarly, the right of children to have a mother and father is not a right to a potential mother and father; they have a mother and father. The right here is their enjoyment of this state of affairs continuing as they are raised without being interfered with by the state or any other.

  53. JamesK says:

    James – Poor people need to worry about Centrelink treating them as if they are married. Rich people need to worry about the Family Court doing so.

    One advantage of being legally married is that it settles the issue of whether there is relationship in the eyes of the law.</blockquot

    Please stop 'playing pious' Andrew.

    The issue of same sex civil union rights has been solved.

    It's not the issue at hand.

  54. Dandy Warhol says:

    The second thought is that gay marriage will not bring the bourgeois social order crashing down, but it is one more step in Antonio Gramsci’s call in the 1930s for a revolutionary ‘march through the institutions.’

    Saunders is worried by the threat to society from marriage-minded homosexuals?

    ‘Nurse!!’

  55. dover_beach says:

    Nor is it the place of the state to restrict people’s use of the word ‘marriage’.

    People are free to call apples oranges if they like; but the government nor anyone else is required to take them seriously.

  56. JamesK says:

    That’s not the equivalent right, according to Saunders. He specifically said “the right of a child to both a mother and father”. Not a right to the potential to have a mother and father. If he had said that, then gay couples would not be breaching that ‘right’.

    Are you really that stupid Jarrah?

    Saunders:

    I can think of good arguments against allowing gay adoption, for there are third-party interests to consider (principally, the right of a child to both a mother and father). But gays already have the right to adopt children, and there will be no going back.

    What has Sauders point got to do with your facile argument that Saunder’s asserted (in Jarrah’s inane words) it was a “human right”.

    Saunders didn’t.

    Why don’t you fuck off and stop derailing threads with your stupidity?

  57. Jarrah says:

    “they have a mother and father.”

    Sometimes not, d_b.

    He phrased it in that way so that he can claim that the child of a gay couple is being deprived. He is dressing it up in the language of rights, and making himself incoherent in the process.

    And James, children don’t have a ‘right’, morally or legally, to both a mother and a father, in the same sense as they have a right to life, liberty and property.

    Besides, he simply assumes the child’s interests are harmed by the lack of one or the other.

  58. JamesK says:

    Saunders is worried by the threat to society from marriage-minded homosexuals?

    Yes as are all opponents of ssm, smartarse.

    The unit of society is the citizen and they are fostered in families who have traditionally been venerated for 6000 years across most world cultutes as one man one woman with a committment to one another and the consequent upbringing of children of that sole union.

    Now no thinker in human history as advocated ssm until the last couple of decades.

    Thinkers denounced polygamy, sexism, racism, homophobia, bigotry throughout history.

    No great public intelectual said marriage should be other than heterosexual until now.

    Given the demographic cliff facing western culture the social crisis of single parent families in western culture all as a result of liberalism since the late 50’s why should ssm marriage be allowed?

    Why should such a profound change be enacted?

    Presumably you have marvellous arguments to counter all of human history and the possiblly of more rapidly damaging the traditional family as the pedagogic unit to renew society amd perhaps even see it flourish and develop?

  59. Jarrah says:

    “but the government nor anyone else is required to take them seriously.”

    But the government does take some people’s marriages seriously. It’s completely unnecessary. Marriage doesn’t need government.

  60. JamesK says:

    He phrased it in that way so that he can claim that the child of a gay couple is being deprived. He is dressing it up in the language of rights, and making himself incoherent in the process.

    That more nonsense from Jarrah who continues to see whatever he wants to believe is written from passages of plain english.

  61. . says:

    JC and I would like to declare marriage as a threat to males!

  62. JamesK says:

    And James, children don’t have a ‘right’, morally or legally, to both a mother and a father, in the same sense as they have a right to life, liberty and property.

    No shit Sherlock?

    And what has that got to do with the price of Saunders potatoes?

  63. JamesK says:

    And children have appropriately limited property rights

  64. Jarrah says:

    I know you secretly love me, Jimmy. 😉

  65. Jc says:

    JC and I would like to declare marriage as a threat to males!

    Yep, It’s the stupidest thing any young male can ever do. In fact any male of any age. Do not get married under any circumstances.

  66. Dandy Warhol says:

    James, I’m a libertarian.

    I’m happy to let people work things out for themselves where there are no, for lack of a better term, ‘negative externalities’.

    For the life of me I can’t see any negative externalities arising from same sex marriage.

    That’s the start and end of my argument.

  67. JamesK says:

    I know you secretly love me, Jimmy. 😉

    I think you’re a tool who derails threads with utter inanities.

    I doubt that counts

  68. dover_beach says:

    Sometimes not, d_b.

    Which children have not had a mother and father?

    And James, children don’t have a ‘right’, morally or legally, to both a mother and a father, in the same sense as they have a right to life, liberty and property.

    So the children of the Stolen Generations were not morally or legally wronged then. Thanks for clearing that up, Jarrah.

  69. Infidel Tiger says:

    For the life of me I can’t see any negative externalities arising from same sex marriage.

    It’s hard enough to get a decent wedding venue without the flamboyant community queue jumping.

  70. Adam Kane says:

    it is one more step in Antonio Gramsci’s call in the 1930s for a revolutionary ‘march through the institutions.’

    It could be, but it doesn’t have to be. Despite the simplistic portrayal of this in the media, particularly by the ABC (which is essentially the institution driving the entire issue), there’s more than one way to do “gay marriage.”
    Gay marriage advocates need to work with moderates to build a consensus and find a way to do it that most people are comfortable with, rather than demonising those against as homophobes.

    Whatever happened to Hawke-style reform through the middle? And frankly they’re setting themselves up for failure anyway, because the lack of dialog means that any legislation they put up will be rubbish.

  71. Jc says:

    Jazzabelle

    Why are you advocating for gay marriage when on the exit one of the marriage partners will be absolutely hosed by the truly evil family courts?

    Why on earth would you be doing this?

  72. JamesK says:

    For the life of me I can’t see any negative externalities arising from same sex marriage.

    That’s the start and end of my argument.

    Fuck off then.

    The author of such facile slipshod puerile stupid reasoning is obviously not worth debating.

    I also resent that you stain the name of libertarianism by claiming to be libertarian whilst espousing such childishness.

  73. Adam Kane says:

    For the life of me I can’t see any negative externalities arising from same sex marriage.

    Here’s an easy one. Will marriage certificates still say ‘husband’ and ‘wife’? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I ask, genuinely not knowing the answer.

  74. John H. says:

    They think evolved institutions are not ‘rational,’ and they believe they can do better.

    What is an evolved institution? Why are you invoking the precautionary principle here? The biggest change to gender relationships is the enhanced freedom of women. Put them back in the kitchen, make them totally subservient to men, and tell them to shut the fuck up. Oh wait, I see the sky is already falling. Too late!

  75. Jarrah says:

    “Which children have not had a mother and father?”

    Have not had, d_b? I’m talking about having, like Saunders.

    “So the children of the Stolen Generations were not morally or legally wronged then.”

    Are you seriously not getting this? If a child is born to (or adopted by) two mothers, there is no infringement of rights, like Saunders would have us believe. That is a completely separate issue to children being taken away from their families.

    “Why on earth would you be doing this?”

    Because they want to do it, despite the risks of marriage and divorce. I’m not a libertarian, but I like the ethos of “if it doesn’t hurt anyone, you shouldn’t be stopped from doing whatever you want”. It’s called freedom.

  76. To clarify my point about a ‘right’ to a mum and dad. I am of course aware that many kids don’t have a mother and father and this is not a right that can be enforced positively. But legalised gay adoption involves the state explicitly denying that children should have a mum and dad. This seems to me to constitute a potential violation of their ‘human rights’ in a negative sense. In 50 years time we’ll have court cases being brought against the government by people claiming their human rights were violated by being denied a mother and father when placed for adoption (remember that our notions of acceptable and unacceptable arrangements change; sending British kids in care out to Australia to start a new life seemed like a good idea to the authorities until 1967).
    On the broader issue of gay marriage, take a look at Brendan O’Neill’s recent Spiked piece:

  77. Adam Kane says:

    For the life of me I can’t see any negative externalities arising from same sex marriage.

    Will birth certificates and passports continue to say ‘mother’ and ‘father?’ or will the official terminology become “Parent 1 and parent 2?” Just curious.

  78. cohenite says:

    I expect that sooner or later Islam will actively sort it all out. They tend to be vigorous about ideology.

    I’m afraid that is the only relevant comment; nature abhors a vacuum which is what ‘progressive’ ideology creates and Islam is just the value to fill the hole.

  79. Adam Kane says:

    If a child is born to (or adopted by) two mothers, there is no infringement of rights, like Saunders would have us believe.

    I agree with Jarrah. Let them marry and adopt.
    And let’s reform the law at the same time, strengthening the institution as a whole.

  80. JamesK says:

    Are you seriously not getting this? If a child is born to (or adopted by) two mothers, there is no infringement of rights, like Saunders would have us believe.

    Are you seriously not getting this Jarrah?

    Saunders never attempted to have us believe that there is an ‘infringement’ of rights to a child of a same sex union.

  81. Jeremiah says:

    The whole purpose of marriage was to create a stable arrangement between a man and a woman to provide the best environment within which to raise children. Love etc has very little to do with it, hence the abundance of loveless marriages around the world. For me the whole question of gay marriage is therefore closely linked with the ability of gay couples to adopt or in the case of lesbians to get sperm donors etc.

    As far as I’m aware its almost universally accepted that children have a far more promising future under the parenting of a mother and father. As such I don’t see why there is a need to adopt children out to gay couples given that the waiting lists are already very long.

    Given that gay couples already can adopt and lesbians already have access to sperm donation it now seems we’ve already crossed over a line that we can’t walk back over.

    I am generally against gay marriage but given the practicality of it I’m not sure whether I can honestly justify that position any longer?

  82. Jarrah says:

    “Saunders never attempted to have us believe that there is an ‘infringement’ of rights to a child of a same sex union.”

    Now who doesn’t understand plain English? Saunders said:

    I can think of good arguments against allowing gay adoption, for there are third-party interests to consider (principally, the right of a child to both a mother and father).

    Plain as day: the ‘right’ of a child to both a mother and a father is a “good argument” against gay adoption.

    And stop flirting with me, I’m married.

  83. Jeremiah says:

    In that sense marriage has effectively been broken down by small changes that have already taken place.

    Another reason to be wary of the Fabian tactics.

  84. Infidel Tiger says:

    Let them marry and adopt.

    Marry and adopt what? Beagles?

    Surely homosexuality is natures way of telling you, you are not biologicvlly meant to have kids? I mean come on, the homosexual community is always telling us it’s a genetic disposition that they are gay and now they want to go against nature and have babies? Why won’t they respect the goddamn science?

  85. Adam Kane says:

    I am generally against gay marriage but given the practicality of it I’m not sure whether I can honestly justify that position any longer?

    I agree, you really can’t. I have some quibbles but can’t find a reason for full-throated opposition.

  86. Dandy Warhol says:

    It’s hard enough to get a decent wedding venue without the flamboyant community queue jumping.

    I’ll pay that IT! 🙂

    JC, I’ll have to corner you one evening over a beer, to hear your thoughts on the need to avoid marriage.

  87. SteveC says:

    IT. I hear that argument a lot. But should that rule apply equally to heterosexual couples who are biologically incapapable of having children?
    The two debates – gay marriage and gay adoption – are fairly separate, in that there is no requirement to be married to have children.

  88. JamesK says:

    Explain to us how “I can think of good arguments against allowing gay adoption, for there are third-party interests to consider (principally, the right of a child to both a mother and father). But gays already have the right to adopt children, and there will be no going back” to Saunders in your words: “He phrased it in that way so that he can claim that the child of a gay couple is being deprived. He is dressing it up in the language of rights, and making himself incoherent in the process”

    And why do you assert that Saunders “(b)esides, he simply assumes the child’s interests are harmed by the lack of one or the other”?

    Where did you make that shit up?

    Saunders neither explained the arguments nor made an argument but merely alluded to “good arguments” of which he was aware but that they are now not pertinent to the ssm debate in the UK in his opinion as a result because ss couples have equal adopting rights to married couples.

    You are verballing Saunders Jarrah.

    Good to see you finally know now that you are not a libertarian.

    But can you acknowkledge the truth at last?

    That you are a dishonest leftist inanity Jarrah.

  89. coz says:

    The privileged legal status homosexuals enjoy means it’s not about equality, it’s about homosupremacy. They want to annex everything and have legal Godlike ‘I shall not be mocked’ status too.

  90. Dandy Warhol says:

    Fuck off then.

    The author of such facile slipshod puerile stupid reasoning is obviously not worth debating.

    I also resent that you stain the name of libertarianism by claiming to be libertarian whilst espousing such childishness.

    A winning argument. You’ve convinced me. The scales have fallen from my eyes.

    Here’s an easy one. Will marriage certificates still say ‘husband’ and ‘wife’? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I ask, genuinely not knowing the answer.

    Seriously, you worry about this? I can’t help you. I don’t know the answer. Don’t care, either.

    Will birth certificates and passports continue to say ‘mother’ and ‘father?’ or will the official terminology become “Parent 1 and parent 2?” Just curious.

    I would hope birth certificates would give the names of the mother and father of the child, where possible. I don’t think the state has the right to deny a person from knowing who their natural parents are.

  91. Dandy Warhol says:

    The privileged legal status homosexuals enjoy means it’s not about equality, it’s about homosupremacy. They want to annex everything and have legal Godlike ‘I shall not be mocked’ status too.

    ‘Nurse! Quickly please!’

  92. JamesK says:

    Seriously, you worry about this?

    Seriously Dandy fuck off.

    On any reasonable reading of your facile and puerile ‘reasoning’ you are not worth the time of day.

  93. Yobbo says:

    Am I the only one who’s sick of johnny-come-lately god botherer JamesK coming into a libertarian site and telling anyone who isn’t a homophobic conservative to “Fuck Off”.

    Why don’t you fuck off, we were here first.

  94. Infidel Tiger says:

    JamesK – you need to to buy some Dale Carnegie books.

  95. coz says:

    I hadn’t noticed. In any case, homophobia is an invented concept. Are we at the FO, no you FO stage of the thread already?

  96. JamesK isn’t even a god botherer, if I recall correctly.

  97. John Mc says:

    They want to annex everything and have legal Godlike ‘I shall not be mocked’ status too.

    The gay marriage debate is a proxy battle against conservatives and religion. It’s an attempt to use legal force to make christians/traditionalists/conservatives consider gay unions on par with their own personal concept of a ‘good’ or ‘righteous’ (or, in the case of Christians, ‘God blessed’) relationship. The irony is it’s the gay community who is now being intolerant.

  98. coz says:

    Everybody wants to be bigger than God these days.

  99. Dandy Warhol says:

    Thankyou Yobbo.

  100. Irving J says:

    Commie not taking his Haloperidol again? tut tut

  101. jrm says:

    I can think of no good, logical argument why one man should not be allowed to marry more than one woman, or one woman more than one man, provided they all freely agree to the arrangement.

    Remember “open marriage”? It was what progressive types experimented with back in the 1970s. I knew some couples who freely agreed to adopt that arrangement. It turned out to be not what they thought. Or rather, they turned out to be not who they thought, and they all finished up divorced within 2 – 3 years.

    So they didn’t “freely agree” to the arrangment. They ignorantly agreed to it.

  102. cohenite says:

    I don’t understand this at all; there is equivalence between defacto and married couples so why do people in gay unions want to be the same as hetereosexuals who call themselves married.

    Is it revenge on the religious aspect of ‘marriage’ which has oppressed gays in the past?

    If so, as has been suggested elsewhere on the thread, the spectre of Islamic influence on social mores had better be considered. This is of immense irony since most of the advocates of gay marriage support multiculturalism, the means by which Islam infiltrates Western society.

  103. JamesK says:

    Yobbo yare aptly named and ignorant.

    Dandy’s (and your) ‘facile solution’ is no solution.

    Pigs arse!

    I’m not religious so your repetive slurs are fuckwit stupid and say everythong about you and nothing of me.

    Agnostics and atheist heterosexual couples want to be married.

    Marriage is popular.

    According to inanely nasty stupid fuckwits like yourself and Dandy fellow citizens shouldn’t be allowed to marry cos you are tired amd bored – yawn – of all this state institutional stuff cos you are may intelligent condescending fuckwit ‘libertarian’ apparently.

    Not only that but there are inter-religion marriages with blessings where both parties want state recognition cos they want their marriage recognised in the community at large.

    Lastly most purely religious marriages also want the state marriage certificate for the same reason.

    Your the bigot Yobbo.

    Not me.

    Provide an argument for same sex marriage or provide a half way sensible argument against state recognised marriage rather than your usual puerile dross.

    Or just do what you really should have done on this topic and stfu

  104. JC says:

    Because they want to do it, despite the risks of marriage and divorce. I’m not a libertarian, but I like the ethos of “if it doesn’t hurt anyone, you shouldn’t be stopped from doing whatever you want”. It’s called freedom.

    How do you know they support it. Polling? What was the question in the poll?

    Try this question.

    As a gay person, are you aware that with gay marriage a couple eventually contemplating divorce would mean, they are dragged into the worst, most unfair area of the law where socialist redistribution is practiced to extreme and a wealthy or high income party is made to part with a substantial amount of his or her wealth or income accumulated independently or prior to the marriage.

    Do you still support gay marriage.

    Strongly support

    Mildly support

    Mildly reject

    Strongly reject

  105. Dandy Warhol says:

    According to inanely nasty stupid fuckwits like yourself and Dandy fellow citizens shouldn’t be allowed to marry cos you are tired amd bored – yawn – of all this state institutional stuff cos you are may intelligent condescending fuckwit ‘libertarian’ apparently.

    Graham Bird is back!

    We are in the presence of greatness.

  106. JC says:

    And jazzabelle, nice cop out. You’re a libertarian when it suits. However when you are aware someone is able to clip you for professing a statist policy, you claim not to be libertarian.

    Try some honesty for a change.

  107. Jeremiah says:

    The gay marriage debate is a proxy battle against conservatives and religion. It’s an attempt to use legal force to make christians/traditionalists/conservatives consider gay unions on par with their own personal concept of a ‘good’ or ‘righteous’ (or, in the case of Christians, ‘God blessed’) relationship. The irony is it’s the gay community who is now being intolerant.

    Very true, and for that reason I don’t know whether its worth fighting? If any fight is worth fighting its worth fighting on the gay adoption front because at least there are good reasons for that, but thats already gone. The gay marriage thing is largely semantics.

  108. Jumpnmcar says:

    My main worry is that two rockspiders engage in a “marriage” of convenience that legally allows them to adopt multiple victims.

    Don’t think they’re not hoping this scenario becomes a reality.

    —————————————————–

  109. coz says:

    It’s probably an echo of the prophetic bride – the satanic envy and hatred of women, there’s always an imposter, imitation of Christ thing going on in the paganocracy, so in some ways it tells Christians that the wedding is near.

  110. JC says:

    I agree with Jarrah. Let them marry and adopt.
    And let’s reform the law at the same time, strengthening the institution as a whole.

    Adam.

    Reform the marriage exit laws first. It shouldn’t work the other way.

    Dandy

    JC, I’ll have to corner you one evening over a beer, to hear your thoughts on the need to avoid marriage.

    Love to have a drink with you dandy. You’ll just get my opinion that the state has basically fucked the entire institution up to the point where men are hounded and treated like dirt. This of course was primarily brought about by the feminazi movement and related men hating groups.

  111. JC says:

    My main worry is that two rockspiders engage in a “marriage” of convenience that legally allows them to adopt multiple victims.

    Don’t think they’re not hoping this scenario becomes a reality.

    True, Jump, but but hurting kids isn’t just a male thing either. Hetro couples are doing it, you know.

  112. John H. says:

    Will birth certificates and passports continue to say ‘mother’ and ‘father?’ or will the official terminology become “Parent 1 and parent 2?” Just curious.

    The birth certificate thing is stupid. Should include the biological parents because of potential medical issues down the road. Knowing your genetic relatives can save your life.

  113. Jeremiah says:

    The only serious argument I can find against gay marriage was articulated by Kane:

    2. Second, and related to that, if we are to examine relationships that cannot enjoy the status of marriage, we must look more widely than just gay couples. If the boundaries must be re-drawn, then surely you need to articulate a principled reason for the new boundary. It’s not good enough to do a patchwork fix (“and gays”) and explain that it’s better than the previous system.

    ie: the slippery slope argument, but even that is not entirely solid.

    I see the whole debate as being largely emotive and its hard to find solid facts one either side. I think its a debate that will largely be won by whomever wants it more and has the most popular support, hence the reason why its largely just swept under the rug by the major parties and the status quo is accepted. Which actually seems sensible.

  114. Dandy Warhol says:

    Agreed JC. Let’s have the beer anyway. We can also talk about the euro 🙂

  115. Jeremiah says:

    The birth certificate thing is stupid. Should include the biological parents because of potential medical issues down the road. Knowing your genetic relatives can save your life.

    True, hard for anyone to argue against that. The actual carers of the child are irrelevent.

  116. JamesK says:

    Graham Bird is back!

    We are in the presence of greatness.

    At least Graeme is fun and provides an argument.

    You attempt to pre-emptively ‘win’ by being condescensing and belittling of the very issues at stake and not bothering with fashion a reasoned argument.

    Marriage is a core if not the core institution of our culture.

    It deserves a little for than a facile emotion based first stage thought.

  117. Dandy Warhol says:

    Very true James. I apologise for not having approached the subject with sufficient gravity.

    I look forward to seeing the start of your campaign to ban adultery.

  118. JamesK says:

    I look forward to seeing the start of your campaign to ban adultery.

    Obviously being facile is a characteristic behaviour.

    And still no argument worthy of the name fashioned.

  119. Yobbo says:

    You haven’t put any thought into it James, apart from the realisation that you hate poofters.

    You aren’t fooling anyone with your last post inserting a few big words after 10 posts in a row using “Fuck Off” as an argument.

    You are a simpleton and your dribble is ruining this blog.

  120. Dandy Warhol says:

    Obviously being facile is a characteristic behaviour.

    And still no argument worthy of the name fashioned.

    You’re not worth the trouble, mate.

  121. dover_beach says:

    Have not had, d_b? I’m talking about having, like Saunders.

    I don’t see how that changes anything.

    Are you seriously not getting this? If a child is born to (or adopted by) two mothers, there is no infringement of rights, like Saunders would have us believe. That is a completely separate issue to children being taken away from their families.

    I’m getting this clearly. I don’t know of any human being that is born to two mothers. And, no, the issues are related by a child’s right to being raised by their mother and father to the extent that chance or circumstance haven’t interfered.

  122. coz says:

    Are these ad hom attacks an admission of defeat? You can be plain about it.

  123. sdfc says:

    My main worry is that two rockspiders engage in a “marriage” of convenience that legally allows them to adopt multiple victims.

    I’ve had exactly the same thought myself Jump. Rock spiders are predators. It is a near certainty I reckon.

  124. dover_beach says:

    Sorry, that is just far-fetched, Jump/sdfc. And even if it where probable, you don’t restrict something merely because it may be abused.

  125. JamesK says:

    You haven’t put any thought into it James, apart from the realisation that you hate poofters.

    You are now proving yourself a parody of my earlier criticisms of you Yobbo.

    You accuse me of hating poofters?

    A homophobic charge. Fairly serious.

    On what basis do you make this latest puerile assertion?

    I initially posted on thos thread to criticise Sinc’s linked Saunders piece and subsequently to defend him from Jarrah’s verballing.

    I gave an account of what ssm proponents would need to overcome and named the two viable ssm marriage arguments of which I’m aware.

    Apart fromn demonstrating yourself to being a bigot what have you contributed Yobbo?

    And the answer is the usual.

    Which is just your usual tired inane unargued opinion smart-arse commentary and nothing that could remotely be reaonably described as useful or interesting.

  126. stackja says:

    The Bible says “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
    “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
    It is time for the end of false ideas from false gods.

  127. Yobbo says:

    I’m not going to answer any of your questions, James. Like Dandy said, you aren’t worth it.

    I just thought I’d let you in on the fact that everyone here considers you a buffoon.

  128. JamesK says:

    You’re not worth the trouble, mate.

    Lame.

    Apparently nobody was worth the trouble from your very first of many comments.

    And don’t call me mate.

  129. JamesK says:

    I just thought I’d let you in on the fact that everyone here considers you a buffoon.

    Thanks for the inside track Yobbo but I’ve noticed you only ever answer questions if you don’t need to provide a rational argument.

    Why is that?

    Don’t answer that.

  130. Yobbo says:

    I already told you why that is JamesK. I have better things to do than spend my days responding to your endless irrelevant questions. I post short replies because I am busy. Goodbye.

  131. JamesK says:

    I already told you why that is JamesK. I have better things to do than spend my days responding to your endless irrelevant questions. I post short replies because I am busy. Goodbye.

    You know you sound like a 14 yo girl?

  132. sdfc says:

    No Dover it is not the only reason but nevertheless is a major concern. Kiddie fiddlers put themselves positions to get access to kids time and again.

    Why should the state facilitate this anymore than it already has?

  133. JC says:

    SDFC
    Kiddie fiddlers don’t just go for the male kids, you know. And by the way the vast proportion of molestation occurs in broken homes by the mothers boyfriend(s) or stepfathers.

    Your argument would also apply to these relationships?

    I also believe the attraction to young kids is inherently built in and not a hetro or gay thing. That at least is what I’ve read.

  134. JC says:

    I really don’t think that’s a fair view on gay people, SDFC.

  135. Jeremiah says:

    Sorry, that is just far-fetched, Jump/sdfc. And even if it where probable, you don’t restrict something merely because it may be abused.

    DB that may be true but I don’t see a solid argument for allowing gay adoption in the first place? As far as I am aware the number of quality heterosexual couples far outnumbers the actual number of children to be adopted, so why would you adopt out to a gay couple at all?

  136. sdfc says:

    Its not about gay people JC, its about pedos.

  137. JC says:

    I agree with you Jeremiah.

  138. Jumpnmcar says:

    True, Jump, but but hurting kids isn’t just a male thing either. Hetro couples are doing it, you know.

    With the rampant and seemingly unstoppable prevalence of these scheming rockspider filth networking on the web, always plotting ways to make “victim finding” easier, we have abundant evidence of intent.

    I find no evidence of hetros involves in such scheming activities.

  139. sdfc says:

    Kiddie fiddlers don’t just go for the male kids, you know. And by the way the vast proportion of molestation occurs in broken homes by the mothers boyfriend(s) or stepfathers.

    Your argument would also apply to these relationships?

    The kids should be removed from those relationships.

  140. Dandy Warhol says:

    Apparently nobody was worth the trouble from your very first of many comments.

    No, not true. But I gave up trying with you after you told me to ‘Fuck Off’. Way back at 6:03pm.

    Mate.

  141. JC says:

    Its not about gay people JC, its about pedos.

    I explained to you where the real risk of molestation is occurring now, so do you advocate banning a mother from living with her boyfriend or having another husband?

  142. sdfc says:

    I advocate a mother who ignores the sexual abuse of her kids having the kids removed and her being prosecuted

  143. JC says:

    The kids should be removed from those relationships.

    Of course they should, but that isn’t the point. You thought you identified a potential risk that gay marriage will be abused by pedos. However I’m pointing out to you where the bigger risk lies and is actually going on right now.

  144. JC says:

    I advocate a mother who ignores the sexual abuse of her kids having the kids removed and her being prosecuted

    Again that really isn’t the point, is it?

  145. Jeremiah says:

    And by the way the vast proportion of molestation occurs in broken homes by the mothers boyfriend(s) or stepfathers.

    Yep, but the state has limited control over that, just like the state can’t stop two knucke draggers from rooting and producing baby knuckle draggers.

    The state should generally avoid sanctioning the creation of a family unit that is inconsistent with the natural order of things.

  146. sdfc says:

    What you are advocating is making the situation worse. Giving pedos the right to adopt kids in no way reduces the risk of kids whose parents are in hetro relationships

  147. Jim Rose says:

    You might wish to look at Doug Allen’s http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/samesex.pdf
    Allen says that marriage is an institution designed and evolved to regulate incentive problems that arise between a man and a woman over the life cycle of procreation.

    The real problem with same-sex marriage is same-sex divorce.

    Marriage includes a set of exit provisions on possible grounds for divorce, rules for splitting property, alimony and child support rules, and custody rules.

    1. Many institutional rules within marriage are designed to restrict males from exploiting the specific investments women must make upfront in child bearing.

    2. Since same-sex marriages are not based as often on procreation, these restrictions are likely to be objected to and challenged in courts and legislatures. To the extent divorce laws are changed, they may hurt heterosexual marriages, and women in particular.

    3. Given that same-sex relationships are often made up of two financially independent individuals, there will be litigation and political pressures for even easier divorce laws since the problem of financial dependency will be reduced.

    Alterations in divorce laws to deal with issues of same-sex divorce necessarily apply to heterosexuals, and these new laws may not be optimal for heterosexuals, making marriage a more fragile institution for them.

    The actual outcomes of no-fault divorce laws, as an example, could hardly have been more different than what was expected and intended. The most obvious outcome was the immediate large increases in divorce rates.

    No fault divorce laws influenced the rate at which women entered the workforce, hours worked in a week, the incidence of spousal abuse, the feminisation of poverty, and the age at which people married.

    No-fault divorce influenced a series of laws related to spousal and child support, child custody, joint parenting, and the definition of marital property.

    Many of these changes had subsequent impacts on the stability of marriages. The actual outcomes of no-fault divorce were unanticipated and unintended.

    Marriage may provide a poor match for the incentive problems that arise in the relationships of gay and lesbian couples. Forcing all three relationships under the same law could lead to a sub-optimal law for all three types of marriage

    I found Allen’s paper to be the first I have seen to discuss the unintended legal and social consequences of same-sex divorce.

    p.s. I forgot to mention second wives clubs such as http://massalimonyreform.org/sec_wives_club.html which lobby for limits the length of time of alimony to the first wife. Natural allies for higher income gay divorcees

  148. dover_beach says:

    Jeremiah, I agree.

  149. Yobbo says:

    As far as I am aware the number of quality heterosexual couples far outnumbers the actual number of children to be adopted, so why would you adopt out to a gay couple at all?

    That’s only true in the sense that the number of prospective adoptive parents outnumbers children in western countries, because there’s no incentive to give up children for adoption when the government will pay you to look after them.

    OTOH there are millions of children available for adoption in poor countries, and they far outnumber the people looking to adopt.

    The only “shortage” is in white babies.

  150. JamesK says:

    As far as I am aware the number of quality heterosexual couples far outnumbers the actual number of children to be adopted, so why would you adopt out to a gay couple at all?

    Many gay and lesbian couples organise their own mutual pregnacies and adoptions afaik though sometimes with profound post-agreement disagreements and I’m not sure of the legal situation with regard to that.

    Secondly many gay couples seeking adoptions from agencies are excellently ceredentialled and would clearly be better on any number of other criteria than many heterosexual couples to be adoptive parents.

    My thoughts are that a married couple is the ideal all things being equal and I think the society should maintain that as an ideal without in any way denigrating the parenting will and skill of suitable homosexual couples.

    Maintaining the primacy of marriage does not ddenigrate same sex couples nor should it be allowed to.

  151. Alice says:

    Jesus

    I thought this was supposed to be a libertaraian blog – I dont mind two people whp want to get married of the same sex. I do mind child predators getting together in a marriage of convenience.

    Its a worthwile concern – now can we change the defacto laws for all those genuinely gay people who want some financial security (as they should be able to get without going down the road of marriage and opening the door to the abusers)?

  152. Jeremiah says:

    The only “shortage” is in white babies.

    Agreed, but once those babies come to Australia they fall under the care of the state. I suppose I’d need to see some stats on how those babies actually fare in reality before I truly make my mind up on it. If there’s evidence to show that there’s a greater likelihood that those children will grow up with problems then obviously I’d oppose it. There is always the argument that even a seriously screwed up western kid is significantly better off than a screwed up third world kid but the bottom line is that the state has to pay the bills for that kids problems and the state isn’t a charity.

    My default position therefore lines up with JamesK’s:

    My thoughts are that a married couple is the ideal all things being equal and I think the society should maintain that as an ideal without in any way denigrating the parenting will and skill of suitable homosexual couples.

  153. Abu Chowdah says:

    Did no one notice during the hair pulling and sissy wrasslin’ that Saunders himself made a clarification in this thread?

    He’s right, I think, that there will be future litigation as a result of the frolic of social engineering.

  154. Alice says:

    Dont mind Graeme Bird myself and Im critical

  155. Alice says:

    Im probably with Jeremiahs view as well

  156. Jeremiah says:

    My thoughts are that a married couple is the ideal all things being equal and I think the society should maintain that as an ideal without in any way denigrating the parenting will and skill of suitable homosexual couples.

    So the bottom line is: does the current system allow for this? I would say yes. But the current system then entrenches the notion that same sex couples are not equal to hetero couples (or rather that it recognises that they are not the same). The whole gay marriage push is for equality so the two are irreconcilable.

  157. Jeremiah says:

    He’s right, I think, that there will be future litigation as a result of the frolic of social engineering.

    Litigation is the logical result of any change to the legal system, it eventually dies down as things become clarified. The problem is that the social engineering is becoming seemingly endless so things never die down!

  158. candy says:

    pretty sure kids don’t want to go to school and talk about their two mums or two dads and not know who their actual mum or dad is when 90 percent have actual mums and dads who go to watch them play cricket or whatever and stuff.

    homosexual caregivers canoodling on the sidelines
    at the footie is not on for boys for example.

  159. John Mc says:

    The whole gay marriage push is for equality so the two are irreconcilable.

    There is a difference between equality under law and equality in the eyes of others. The former is essential, the latter a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

    The problem with the gay marriage debate is that it’s gone beyond equality under law and is chasing the latter.

    The ideal solution is where the state takes care of enforcing the contract and the church, or whatever you believe best represents your union, takes care of the marriage.

    But that’s the ideal. Until then we should oppose those attempting to force their views on others by proxy argument.

  160. Carpe Jugulum says:

    The whole gay marriage push is for equality so the two are irreconcilable.

    That cannot be. Marriage is a man and a woman with the prospect of children, no matter how anyone pharases or tries to form an argument i see that as irreconcilable.

    A family is Mum, Dad & kids. Not dad, uncle dad & designer baby as an accessory or mum, mum & nondescript child as a ‘right’.

  161. JamesK says:

    The ideal solution is where the state takes care of enforcing the contract and the church, or whatever you believe best represents your union, takes care of the marriage

    That doesn’t account for atheists and agnostics who want marriage in the sense of state sanctioned John MC.

    Moreover most religious people want state sanctioned marriage additionally.

    That way it’s not just fellow particular fellow religionists who recognise the marriage but society at large.

    Funny that.

    You “ideal” is dead before it never grew legs.

    So back to the real world:

    Should marriage be redefined to include same sex unions?

  162. sdfc says:

    Some married couples aren’t fortunate enough to have kids.

  163. JamesK says:

    Some married couples aren’t fortunate enough to have kids.

    Some married couples choose not to have children.

    Probaly the majority or significant minority of european marriages do that.

  164. John Mc says:

    That’s like saying most people want a state sanctioned religion. We’ve crossed that hurdle, and eventually we will do the same with this issue.

    Conservatives shouldn’t worry; marriage (like religion) isn’t going anywhere, state-sanctioned or not. Even hard-core libertarians make the traditional family lifestyle by choice, and will continue to do so.

  165. sdfc says:

    The statement that marriage is all about having kids is a furphy.

  166. blogstrop says:

    I’m late to this party – wow. Gone viral. That tells you something.

  167. John Mc says:

    Should marriage be redefined to include same sex unions?

    I don’t think so. The Marriage Act should be left alone. It’s not ideal that it’s a piece of law, but whatever. So long as gay people can achieve the same legal effect through a civil union. Attacking the usually decent people who hold the Marriage Act as something sacred isn’t helpful to freedom or progress.

  168. John Mc says:

    That tells you something.

    Yeah it does. This issue matters. That’s why neither party wants to mess with it.

  169. blogstrop says:

    The stupid thing about this debate, as revealed recently in a program on the GAYBC, is that the homosexuals themselves do not want “marriage” as such and admit as much. Dennis Altman outlined that they want an amorphous and promiscuous variant.
    So the Gramscian “tear it down, tear it all down” thesis has a lot to recommend it.

  170. Jeremiah says:

    SDFC, refer my comment at 6:17 re the origins of marriage.

    Marriage itself has no purpose in law at the moment since the de facto status undercut it. It would be better to remove the legal status of marriage altogether. That way people can be united under the law and then call it whatever the hell they want in reality and if they so choose they can have it sanctioned by the church.

  171. dover_beach says:

    The statement that marriage is all about having kids is a furphy.

    Indeed. Thankfully nobody has argued it’s ALL about having children.

  172. cohenite says:

    Jim Rose; good points; as with any contract the get-out clause is the key one; in our society the issues with conventional marriage are not about getting married but getting divorced. The pendulum of ‘advantage’ between the wive and the husband can be alligned to whether an ALP or Coalition government is in power with ALP governments generally presiding over greater ‘advantage’ to the wife.

    Advantage in this sense is usally reducible to money but also greater control over the children. And it is in respect of the children of the marriage that I see your analysis of the pendulum swinging back to the husband as a result of gay marriage and divorce breaking down.

    Gay couples can have at least partially biological children with one of the partners either fathering or bearing the child. Given the prioritisation of children and their needs in conventional divorce, I would see the biological parent in gay relationships having a marked advantage of the non-biological partner.

    Where there are children who are not biologically connected to either of the gay parents, and which have a biological connection to other Australian citizens I can see a complete shambles emerging of the sort we are seeing already where the biology of children is being subordinated to the gay marriage status.

    It is the rock of the rights of children which eventually may cause the good ship of gay marriage to sink rather than the antiquated demands of conventional views on marriage.

  173. JamesK says:

    The stupid thing about this debate, as revealed recently in a program on the GAYBC, is that the homosexuals themselves do not want “marriage” as such and admit as much. Dennis Altman outlined that they want an amorphous and promiscuous variant.
    So the Gramscian “tear it down, tear it all down” thesis has a lot to recommend it.

    I think you hit the nail on the head.

    This is a leftist driven activism.

    It’s not primarily gay people per se who have fired it up into the public consciousness and legislatures and courts

    The Left use it in the way the have used and usurped feminism and anti-racism activists.

    The Left are the destructitive force to western cultural democracies and as such are far worse than radical islamists.

    Moreover they form an alliance with radical islam who are happy to play along for the time being although radical islam loathes them more than christians or jews.

  174. Adam Kane says:

    Dennis Altman outlined that they want an amorphous and promiscuous variant.

    So what? that’s not going to have any effect on standard, straight marriage.

  175. manalive says:

    I don’t understand why this issue has assumed such proportions.
    I don’t understand why homosexual couples want to be recognised by the state.
    I don’t understand why heterosexual couples want to prevent it.
    Marriage may be a sacred union (that’s up to the couple involved), but there is nothing “sacred” about the Marriage Act — about one third of all ‘official’ marriages end in legal divorce and who knows how many ‘official’ marriages are in name only.

  176. sdfc says:

    Marriage is an explicit contract between two people. Why should it not be recognised?

  177. candy says:

    “It is the rock of the rights of children which eventually may cause the good ship of gay marriage to sink rather than the antiquated demands of conventional views on marriage.”

    the only important thing is the rights of children as they are the innocents brought into weird combinations of caregivers and their rights to know their biological mum and dad thrown to the wind.

    children are people too!

  178. JamesK says:

    So you’re confused and don’t understand much manalive.

    Oooookay

  179. sdfc says:

    Thankfully nobody has argued it’s ALL about having children.

    Wrong. See carpe’s comment.

  180. dover_beach says:

    Yes, I saw Carpe’s comment; he doesn’t say it’s ALL about having children. He said: Marriage is a man and a woman with the prospect of children. He’s right.

  181. Rabz says:

    WE WANT A REFERENDUM ON “GAY MARRIAGE” BECAUSE WE THINK IT WILL FAIL.

    Agreed.

    If it’s so bloody popular then put it to the people.

    I’ll put both my houses on the fact that the people will overwhelmingly reject it.

    Ultimately, it will be about as popular as a fart in a crowded lift.

  182. coz says:

    On a different tack, for religious people, I think the occult significance of the act of sodomy is something that is never discussed in these matters. Hopefully some of the Crowleyites could enlighten us as to what they feel sodomy achieves spiritually.

  183. sdfc says:

    No he’s not Dover. Some couples can’t have kids. They are no less married than those that do.

  184. JamesK says:

    A Male Fairy Tale

    Once upon a time, a Prince asked a beautiful Princess: “Will you marry me?”

    The Princess said: No!!!

    And the Prince lived happily ever after and rode motorcycles and banged skinny long-legged big-titted broads and hunted and fished and raced cars and went to naked bars and dated women half his age and drank whiskey, beer and rum and never heard bitching and never paid child support or lost his castle and he banged cheerleaders and kept his guns and ate spam and potato chips and beans and blew enormous farts and never got cheated on while he was at work and all his friends and family thought he was frickin’ cool as hell and he had tons of money in the bank and left the toilet seat up.

    The end.

  185. candy says:

    JamesK
    not happy ever after tho is it?

  186. Rabz says:

    BTW, apart from those excrement eating numpties the greenslimers, when did a politician/party with a serious chance of wining an election go to the people saying “we will legitimise same sex marriage”?

    Never.

    So stop trying to sneak it in against the popular will, you sanctimonious shitheads.

    Mind you, if Yabbott went in to the next election promising to legalise it, would it reduce the size of the majority the coalition will receive?

    No, or if did, only marginally.

    That’s why this is exactly the type of issue that MUST be put to the people via a referendum.

  187. . says:

    Marriage is an explicit contract between two people. Why should it not be recognised?

    Why not recognise other contracts?

    Jeremiah is correct.

    manalive – bang on.

    Yobbo has made some points that have simply cut through the bullshit.

  188. sdfc says:

    What other contracts are nullified by a marriage contract between two people?

  189. . says:

    Yep James, Yobbo is right about you.

  190. dover_beach says:

    No one argues that they are less married, sdfc. You’re confusing a general statement for a particular one.

  191. JamesK says:

    JamesK
    not happy ever after tho is it?

    A happy marriage is definitely something to aspire to Candy.

  192. JamesK says:

    Yep James, Yobbo is right about you.

    In which particular and why precisely dot?

  193. Chris M says:

    Golden Dawn is posting here now?

    I associate homosexuals with the Green movement (funny that). So real simple – whatever they want I want the opposite.

    Principle works for ABC too, I’ll support for whoever they dump on the most.

  194. rob says:

    “Everyone would then be exactly equal under the law, which seems to be the issue causing gay people conniptions.”

    But they already are: I recently went to a gay couple’s engagement, they are going to recite vows with a priest-shaman-whatever, they will have a reception, they live together, they will (I understand) have their partnership registered with the births/deaths/marriages office and legally they have the same status in their “domestic partnership” so-called as a married couple. I mean, they are married whether it is called that or not. And that is exactly what they are calling it, it was their “engagement”, their “wedding” and they will be “husband” and “husband”. And everyone from the 10 year old niece to the 98-year-old great-grandmother couldn’t give a S*** about the fact that they are in a same-sex partnership.

    Can anyone explain what needs to be changed and why?

  195. . says:

    Everything James.

  196. JamesK says:

    Yes I thought so you coward.

  197. . says:

    I answered your question. You then called me a coward for answering it.

    Yobbo was right.

  198. Chris says:

    The birth certificate thing is stupid. Should include the biological parents because of potential medical issues down the road. Knowing your genetic relatives can save your life.

    Requiring biological parents listed is not what has happened in the past. Think about cases where donor sperm or eggs have been used for heterosexual couples.

    I agree genetic history is important and perhaps there should be fields added to birth certificates which list genetic parentage. And this may be completely different to the legal parents even with heterosexual couples.

  199. Abu Chowdah says:

    Litigation is the logical result of any change to the legal system, it eventually dies down as things become clarified. The problem is that the social engineering is becoming seemingly endless so things never die down!

    In this case, there is no legal clarification that would satisfy someone who felt an unfair decision had been made for them as an infant. And I agree, there’s always some new, bizarre issued group that feels entitled lurking around the next corner.

  200. coz says:

    Is there no-one from the paganocracy who will ‘splain to us the occult significance of sodomy?

  201. . says:

    WTF are you on about coz?

    Pagans? Sodomy?

    Snap out of it. What year is it? 392 AD or 2012 AD?

  202. JamesK says:

    Why listen coz?

    They’re full of shit.

  203. Chris says:

    Rob – Depends on where you live but if one of them gets sick and goes to the hospital the other may discover that their partner’s family can stop them from visiting or having any say in the medical care because they’re not married.

  204. JamesK says:

    Q: In which particular and why precisely dot?

    A: Everything James.

    My reply: Yes I thought so you coward.

    dot’s reply reply: I answered your question. You then called me a coward for answering it.

    Yobbo was right.

    It hasn’t occurred to you that you pointedly haven’t answered the question dot?

    I mean I know you’re not bright….. but dude?

    And why repeat the inane charge?

    How does that add to sum of your stupidity?

  205. JamesK says:

    Rob – Depends on where you live but if one of them gets sick and goes to the hospital the other may discover that their partner’s family can stop them from visiting or having any say in the medical care because they’re not married.

    No Chris that pointedly is not an issue.

  206. Abu Chowdah says:

    As nice as my luvvie friends are, the very idea of that act is vile and repulsive. Best not to ask Coz. That way lies madness. Same with the straights who engage in “the obedience test”.

  207. coz says:

    Why listen coz?

    They’re full of shit.

    well it gets to that point where no-one’s questions have been answered and it’s just a ‘because we say it’s so’ case. The political classes signed us up to the UN agenda, so debate is pretty pointless. Unlike other posters here, I don’t class you as a religious person, but God will not be deceived in this matter of the ‘drag’ bride the homosexuals hope to fake.

  208. rob says:

    Chris, if they are in an established domestic partnership I doubt that is the case.

    You have to realise that if you go and actually walk through your average trauma unit or ICU the proportion of patients leading an alcohol-sodden, dangerous driving, pill-popping and generally chaotic life is quite high. When it comes to visiting rights the fact someone is an established de facto partner (=domestic partner of either sex) is not the biggest problem around.

    “I agree genetic history is important…”

    Why do you agree with that?
    What are these mysterious genetic issues that require doctors to physically drag a biological parent into the room? If it’s a genetic disease wouldn’t you do a genetic test in the lab?

    There are admittedly diseases in the child that would make you think “gee we should get the biological relatives tested too”. Like Huntington’s chorea. But these sorts of things are often untreatable anyway so the utility is only for prognostic issues.

  209. John H. says:

    Why do you agree with that?
    What are these mysterious genetic issues that require doctors to physically drag a biological parent into the room? If it’s a genetic disease wouldn’t you do a genetic test in the lab?

    How do you think they cure leukemia? Or what about a kidney transplant? Or harvesting stem cells from suitable relatives? Sheesh, some people even recover the stem cells from the placenta so these can be stored in case of latter disease. This should be obvious to people, I’m surprised that in this day and age people don’t appreciate how vital knowing one’s genetic lineage is.

  210. sdog says:

    if one of them gets sick and goes to the hospital the other may discover that their partner’s family can stop them from visiting or having any say in the medical care because they’re not married

    Enduring Power of Attorney (Medical Treatment). In the States, at least, that’s what you want if you want someone (same sex or hetero) to whom you are not related by blood or marriage to be able to make medical decisions on your behalf if you’re not capable.

    If you’re in a marriage-like relationship and you want your partner to have the rights (and responsibilities) that a legal spouse would have, give them to them.

  211. Piett says:

    On a different tack, for religious people, I think the occult significance of the act of sodomy is something that is never discussed in these matters. Hopefully some of the Crowleyites could enlighten us as to what they feel sodomy achieves spiritually.

    coz, the above wins the prize for best comment ever written at the Cat.

    Is there no-one from the paganocracy who will ‘splain to us the occult significance of sodomy?

    Sinc, your loyal readership is posing penetrating questions, and we expect answers!

  212. perturbed says:

    Some couples can’t have kids. They are no less married than those that do.

    We call that “being infertile”.

    For het couples, it’s called “bad luck”.

    For gay couples, it’s called “by definition”.

    This is why, spiritually, the Churches will never (and should never) recognise gay marriage on the same level – because one of the spiritual aspects of traditional marriage is that sexual intercourse sanctified by the marriage bond should, all else being equal, result in children who are the biological and spiritual inheritors of both parents. But there is usually no way of knowing how things are going to fall out beforehand, which is why the Churches have always been tolerant of those who try and try and simply can’t get there.

    And as tragic as it is when the natural run of childbearing fails (for medical reasons) to happen in straight married couples, it cannot ever happen between gays.

    A new and different sacrament that otherwise recognises the desire of two loving persons to commit to each other for life? That, I could live with.

  213. Yobbo says:

    Nobody cares what the churches think, only the government.

  214. Jarrah says:

    “But legalised gay adoption involves the state explicitly denying that children should have a mum and dad. This seems to me to constitute a potential violation of their ‘human rights’ in a negative sense.”

    I’m sorry I missed your comment, otherwise I would have responded earlier.

    Unfortunately, you still haven’t shown why this is a violation, or potential violation of children’s human rights, because you haven’t elaborated on why this should be considered a human right at all. Presumably because that would lead you to consideration about ideal conditions for children, and that’s one giant can of worms. Particularly for anyone from the CIS, who would believe that ideal conditions are most definitely not the subject of human rights.

  215. ken n says:

    I am not really entering the argument, just laying down a marker, as I have before on this subject.
    I think Saunders’s argument are nonsense.
    Allowing same sex couples to marry does not affect anyone else’s marriage or rights. So on basic libertarian principles,let them do what they want.

  216. JamesK says:

    So on basic libertarian principles,let them do what they want.

    It’s certainly basic unencumbered as it is with second stage thinking.

    Good of ken to save us from sophisticated thoughts

  217. dover_beach says:

    Ken, we do. But on basic libertarian principles no one is required to recognize same sex relationships as marriages.

  218. ken n says:

    Indeed d_b. If I could start from scratch, I would get the government out of marriage.

    If you mean “sophisticated” in its original sense, JK I will do my best.

    I don’t think you can get to the right answer on this or on other similar issues (abortion is another) by any process of logic or evidence. It really is a question of what we feel comfortable with. If a clear majority are comfortable with ss marriage – and I think it’s getting close – then I don’t see how the rights of the minority are affected enough to allow them to override the majority. In other words, the minority is not oppressed.
    I also think that people wanting ss marriage cannot convincingly argue that they have a right. It is a matter of social consensus, it seems to me.
    Like lots of other things we need to sort out so we can live together in reasonable harmony.

  219. JamesK says:

    It really is a question of what we feel comfortable with.

    So your thinking is all ‘feelings’ based ken?

  220. dover_beach says:

    I don’t think you can get to the right answer on this or on other similar issues (abortion is another) by any process of logic or evidence. It really is a question of what we feel comfortable with.

    I think this is nonsense. I can imagine someone saying exactly the same thing about slavery several centuries earlier.

  221. ken n says:

    d_b I can imagine people saying all sorts of things several centuries ago with which I disagree.
    The difference is that slavery harmed other people. I don’t believe ss marriage does.

  222. ken n says:

    “So your thinking is all ‘feelings’ based ken?”
    Nope. With many issues of morality – take pre marital sex for instance – the prevailing morality changes when a majority of people in a society is comfortable with or at least willing to accept the change.

  223. JamesK says:

    Nope. With many issues of morality – take pre marital sex for instance – the prevailing morality changes when a majority of people in a society is comfortable with or at least willing to accept the change.

    1.So when did the prevailing ‘morality’ last change on same sex marriage ken?

    6000 years ago?

    2. Which of your various moralities depends on ‘comfortability’ (ie feelings based) and which isn’t?

    Is there a Gillardian line that should not be crossed where it matters not how you ‘feel’?

  224. dover_beach says:

    The difference is that slavery harmed other people. I don’t believe ss marriage does.

    Quite, but I was thinking of your reference to abortion, not ss ‘marriage’, or are you suggesting that the former harms no one? Anyway, harm is only operative to the extent that a moral wrong has been committed (I can harm you without committing a moral wrong).

    Nope. With many issues of morality – take pre marital sex for instance – the prevailing morality changes when a majority of people in a society is comfortable with or at least willing to accept the change

    No, it changes as people’s conception of reasonableness changes, which of course, is not disconnected to issues of “logic and evidence”.

  225. ken n says:

    Getting too deep for me.
    I am a bit surprised that few here sees ss marriage as a libertarian issue. But then many here are conservative as well as libertarian.
    I guess I am more liberal on many social issues.
    I also think that putting people in detention on the basis of an ASIO assessment, without reasons being given, is outrageous.
    But on economic issues we are almost all in violent agreement.
    Enough.

  226. JC says:

    Ken

    How is gay marriage a libertarian issue when the state is actually defining it? i don’t quite get it. To my mind it is about equal to adding more people to welfare rolls, which also can be seen as a good thing by some people.

    It is not libertarian, it’s statist.

    What would be libertarian would be for the government to stop being in the relationship business and get out.

  227. Abu Chowdah says:

    It’s a libertarian issue if you think it’s symptomatic of an inevitable unrecoverable shift to the Left, because that equals increased government interference in every element of our lives.

  228. ken n says:

    What would be libertarian would be for the government to stop being in the relationship business and get out.

    Let’s agree on that JC.

  229. manalive says:

    The Marriage Act IMHO has only one public benefit, it pays for the education of umpteen lawyers’ kids at the best private schools who may go on to become medical scientists or industrialists or whatever.

  230. sdfc says:

    Dover

    No one argues that they are less married, sdfc. You’re confusing a general statement for a particular one.

    Particular cases make the statement erroneous. General statements are usually prone to error.

    Let me be clear, procreation is not the basis for all modern marriages. The generalisation fails. Some people choose to procreate after getting married (or before), others don’t or can’t.

  231. kae says:

    John Mc 8:43

    I don’t think so. The Marriage Act should be left alone. It’s not ideal that it’s a piece of law, but whatever. So long as gay people can achieve the same legal effect through a civil union. Attacking the usually decent people who hold the Marriage Act as something sacred isn’t helpful to freedom or progress.

    I agree with what you say. There are more important things to worry about at the moment with the inept ALP running their circus (Our Government).

  232. sdog says:

    Kae, I happen to agree that there are much more important things which we should be focusing our time & energy on, no matter our personal beliefs. Gay marriage actually affects such a small proportion of the population (read this, in the Atlantic, to see how average citizens overestimate the proportion of gays in society: Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it’s probably less than 2 percent) whereas the myriad other policies in play affect all citizens (both straight and gay) and will make more of a day-to-day difference in all citizens’ (both straight and gay) lives.

    For gay couples at the moment, there are heaps of legal resources already available to you to help you give your life partner most of the same legal, financial and medical rights a State-recognized legally-wed spouse would have, if that’s the kind of commitment you’re willing & ready to make. For the whole legislative global “marriage” definition-change thing, though, I’d argue that that’d be pretty far down on the list of political priorities for any thinking person, straight or gay.

  233. dover_beach says:

    Particular cases make the statement erroneous. General statements are usually prone to error.

    Not at all. As I said above: What are we to learn from marriages that, in practice, fall short of the characteristics that are typically associated with marriage? Nothing at all; well, we learn that they fall short of these characteristics.

    Let me be clear, procreation is not the basis for all modern marriages. The generalisation fails. Some people choose to procreate after getting married (or before), others don’t or can’t.

    This just misunderstands the argument. You might as well say that loveless marriages prove that love is not characteristic of marriage; or that ‘open marriages’ or infidelity prove that exclusivity isn’t characteristic of marriage. Or, to take another example, that babies that are born without arms and legs disprove the general statement that arms and legs are characteristic of human beings.

  234. JamesK says:

    I agree with what you say. There are more important things to worry about at the moment with the inept ALP running their circus (Our Government).

    Why is everything else important kae?

    Has marriage been one of the core if not the core institution of western culture?

    Yeay or nay?

    If nay don’t bother commenting further as I couldn’t be arsed debating you but if yeay how could that fact marry – to use an operative pun – with your remarkable indifference?

    I mean I accept marriage is unimportant to you personally and I have absolutely no problem with that.

    Indeed respect for personal freedom demands that.

    But as a citizen in a western cultural society marriage has some importance to our society and how that society’s children are reared and they and ensuing generations in turn will hopefully enjoy a free life similarly bestowed on us by prior generations and in turn grow the society and advance the culture.

    Or do you deny even that importance?

  235. sdog says:

    The JamesK aggrobot software would appear to have developed a glitch.

  236. Jarrah says:

    “Or, to take another example, that babies that are born without arms and legs disprove the general statement that arms and legs are characteristic of human beings.”

    What that example shows is that you can be human without arms and legs, despite a characteristic of humans being the having of arms and legs. Therefore, the state of not having arms and legs is not an automatic disqualifier from the state of humanity.

    I’ll let you fill in the rest.

  237. Jessie says:

    Such frivolity discussing the wishes of a well paid and educated minority group to discuss the right to marriage. And whether it be civil or The Church.

    In central and northern Australia, young Australian girls, by trickery or force, are taken to communities and homelands to be ‘married’. Married is the term used locally, not recognised by The Church, but recognised by the state and their apparatchik for the purposes of unemployment benefit (CDEP) counts or single parents benefit. These young girls have no choice. But they DO understand freedom. They have no choice that they may be a 2nd or 3rd wife. Should they refuse, they will be ostracised, pack-raped, beaten and broken within an inch of their life. Some escape to the never-ending cycle of ‘training’, where they can escape this Stockholm Syndrome’ environment. Eventually many become alcoholics, acquiesce to the vile ‘native’ existence foisted upon them, or remain as single mothers.

    This trade in Australia, of humans, maintains a myth, for continuing title of land, albeit of forced procreation, but nevertheless now enacted in law on the mainland.

    It is nothing less than a trade in human cargo, of Australians by birth.
    Young men, also find it difficult to escape ‘tradition’ or entrapment in these cultural ghettos. They are hunted down to maintain group initiation ceremonies and to marry within, at the mercy of tyrannical individuals and supporters of these annual activities and ‘festivals’.
    This cult is actively supported by older man AND women. It has little do to with the study and excuse of alcohol, sniffing petrol, lack of education or employment.

    SS activists and the media should be ashamed they have silenced, through their shrill of self-interest. Such heinous activity relegating 1000’s of young Australian girls and boys to a life tied to culture and myth is an act of terror and horror.

  238. kae says:

    Spot
    Yes, I thought that gay people already had the same rights as hetero couples. I have rellies who are gay and have been together since before 1998, they’ve purchased a home together in inner Sydney and I would imagine that they have their shit sorted out.
    I don’t discuss these issues with them, the opportunity hasn’t arisen and it’s really none of my business.

    James K 11:17

    Indifference? My indifference?

    How would you know that I am indifferent to marriage?

    See my reference to Spot’s comment above, this is why it is not an important issue right now.

  239. JamesK says:

    See my reference to Spot’s comment above, this is why it is not an important issue right now.

    That’s exactly my point kae.

    The common refrain is that ‘we have more important fish to fry’ or somesuch.

    But that effectively cedes the arguent to the ssm activists.

    It effectively beliittles the institution of marriage.

    What you are in effect saying by making that lazy argument is that ‘I care not to any significant degree about the institution of marriage and its central role – historically at least – in our society’.

    See Saunders’ description of Gramsci’s plan above.

    You’re actuallly more effective an advocate for ssm than saying you are for same sex marriage by effectively belitttling the institution’s relevance.

  240. dover_beach says:

    Jarrah, it is an ‘automatic disqualifier’ if X doesn’t merely fall short but never enjoys A.

  241. kae says:

    Whatever, JamesK.

    Why don’t you protest ssm in the streets? It should make you feel better about objecting to it.

    Has it occurred to you that it is not belittling marriage to not want to change the status quo?

  242. kae says:

    You’ve formed your opinion of what I think. You can keep it, my thoughts are much deeper than what you can opine, unless you can read minds and I doubt that very much.

  243. nilk says:

    For the whole legislative global “marriage” definition-change thing, though, I’d argue that that’d be pretty far down on the list of political priorities for any thinking person, straight or gay.

    Unfortunately, Spot, thinking people are pretty thin on the ground these days, which is why we have to have this discussion.

  244. JamesK says:

    Whatever, JamesK.

    You’ve just encapsulated my point kae.

    It’s not a matter of saying I should be an activist because I happen to point pout that effectively you belittle the institution of marriage and as such you are more effective than an activist for ssm.

    I asked a simple question:

    Is marriage as an institution not one of the core institutions of our western cultural democracy?

    You have no answer but derision.

    Which is exactly my point.

    To you whether Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott is PM is much the more impportant issue.

  245. kae says:

    JamesK
    Has it occurred to you that it is not belittling marriage to not want to change the status quo?

  246. kae says:

    Has it occurred to you that it is not belittling marriage to not want to change the status quo?

  247. kae says:

    In case you missed it the first three times.

    Has it occurred to you that it is not belittling marriage to not want to change the status quo?

  248. JamesK says:

    In case you missed it the first three times.

    Has it occurred to you that it is not belittling marriage to not want to change the status quo?

    I’m perfectly aware you want to keep the status quo but you belittle the status of marriage anyways with your rationale for wanting to keep the status quo.

    It’s actually more damaging to the status quo than if you were an advocate for ssm.

    Read any of my replies to your comments above.

    Properly this time, please.

Comments are closed.