Peter Saunders on gay marriage II

Recently I pointed to Peter Saunders’ arguments about gay marriage.

… 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. …
[and]
… 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.

Lorenzo over at Skepticlawer has a reply:

Part of being conservative is having a sense of the fragility of social order. Likely too strong a sense; as Adam Smith famously observed, there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.

But that sense of the fragility of social order seems to often come with a notion that, unless the current limits are adhered to, there are no limits. Hence, for example, assuming that unless heterosexuality as a compulsory norm is accepted, somehow one ends up with bestiality. Hence also the notion of the enormous corrupting power of small groups. They are outside the set limit, so acceptance of their legitimacy destroys all limits.

Yet, one of the striking things about the various emancipation struggles is how society ended up working better, not worse, from their success.

There is no great mystery as to why. Not only are the talents of the group made much more accessible to the wider society, social resources are also no longer wasted repressing them. Moreover, the group in question then becomes invested in the existing social order, rather than alienated from it. The problem is not having a sense of the fragility of social order, the problem is thinking that social order requires people be confined in very unequal social cages. Again and again, this has proved to be flatly not true. The society conservatives were “defending” proved to be much more resilient, with far greater capacities for renewal, than they were willing to admit.

Update: I have fixed the link to Skepticlawyer.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

192 Responses to Peter Saunders on gay marriage II

  1. Chris M says:

    Hence, for example, assuming that unless heterosexuality as a compulsory norm is accepted, somehow one ends up with bestiality.

    …yet offers no reason why a consenting bestial marriage should be regarded as abnormal whilst a homosexual one is, well so normal all couples in society should be in them or something.

    Beastophobe!

  2. JamesK says:

    Fascinating so according to the latest crap from SL there’s a direct lineage of conservative champions of slavery with modern conservatism.

    What another puerile load of arrogant condescending confused tosh from SL.

    Lincoln a conservative ended in the US after Christians in Britain had ended it there.

    And Sinc keeps posting it approvingly.

    Does Sinc – as well as Lorezo – approve of ‘progressivism’?

  3. JamesK says:

    slavery

  4. JamesK says:

    ps. You’re link to SL doesn’t work Sinc

  5. JamesK says:

    ps. Your link to SL doesn’t work Sinc

  6. Token says:

    Yet, one of the striking things about the various emancipation struggles is how society ended up working better, not worse, from their success.

    This smells like RINO crap. Time to stop indulging your conservative impulses and yield to your intellectual superiors when they choose to remake society.

    No amount of blathering by the gay lobby (who can get all they want out of civil unions) will convince me that the campaign for gay marriage is as important as the ending of slavery or allowing women the right to vote.

  7. Nanuestalker says:

    Similarly, the current debates over queer* emancipation are literally a re-run of past debates over Jewish emancipation–right down to exactly the same accusations being made against queers as were previously made against Jews (being an offence against God, being against the Christian basis of Western civilisation, that they corrupt everything they touch, that they prey on children, that they spread disease, etc etc). Ever since the Enlightenment, and particularly the Industrial Revolution, the opponents of equal protection of the law have always, in the end, lost. Yet here conservatives are, mounting the same barricades all over again in a cause it is clear they will and are losing.

    For fucks sake, what horseshit!

  8. Gab says:

    He’s equating the activists lobbying for same sex “marriage” as akin to Jews suffering the Holocaust? What an idiotic, OTT comment and highly offensive to boot.

  9. Infidel Tiger says:

    Finally! I’ve been waiting with bated breath for another thread on homo hoedowns.

  10. JC says:

    I think Lorenzo ought to read Justin Raimondo’s piece with regards to the freedom struggles that gays went through. I’m not against gay marriage as I don’t think it matters one iota as the institution of marriage was taken over by the state and totally fucked over (feminist laws and the redistributionist family court).

    The real struggle by gays to be left alone has already been won. Here:

    Now this was a real live struggle for equal rights.

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

    You could argue for legalization of gay marriage, but let’s not pretend for a second, like Raimondo suggests we are, this a libertarian like upsurge in a struggle for rights. It’s bullshit, as he clearly points out.

    In a lot of ways Raimondo, who is gay himself and no small time political player is agreeing with Saunders.

  11. Ronaldo says:

    I would have thought that homosexual emancipation, in any reasonable sense of what that concept implies, was completed in Australia some years ago.

  12. Gab says:

    In terms of evolution and nature I wonder the purpose of homosexuality.

  13. candy says:

    I get the idea he’s only talking about male homosexuals, wonder why.

  14. C.L. says:

    A long overdue discussion.

  15. dover_beach says:

    Hence, for example, assuming that unless heterosexuality as a compulsory norm is accepted, somehow one ends up with bestiality.

    No, the problem is, without an argument of some sort, the difference is merely a matter of one’s ‘orientation’. Ick, yeew, doesn’t sound to me a very good argument. Moreover, it isn’t unqualified heterosexuality that is the ‘norm’.

    Anyway, so far as gay ‘marriage’ is concerned, ’emancipation’ is achieved without pretending that SSR is identical to marriage.

  16. Jarrah says:

    “… 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.”

    I have a lot of sympathy for this sentiment. However, what Saunders and many anti-gay-marriage types are forgetting is that evolution doesn’t ever stop. Trying to use the law to prevent social institutions evolving is pointlessly oppressive.

  17. JamesK says:

    In a lot of ways Raimondo, who is gay himself and no small time political player is agreeing with Saunders

    Except Saunders argument if memory serves (and I can’t be bothered re-reading) was that it was part of the Left’s hidden agenda and the battle is already lost so why bother?

    There are only two arguments for SSM and Raimondo destroys one.

    The easy one ie ‘discrimination’ (in a negative sense).

    The hard argument is that loving SS couples are deprived of the romance of marriage.

    All other arguments are belittling of SSM opponents.

    In other words standard leftist protocol

  18. Rabz says:

    Oh well, now that we’re on this interminably infuriating topic, again…

  19. blogstrop says:

    Not only are the talents of the group made much more accessible to the wider society, social resources are also no longer wasted repressing them.
    Gay mardi gras, what an advance!
    Moreover, the group in question then becomes invested in the existing social order, rather than alienated from it.
    No, they just move on to the next demand.
    The problem is not having a sense of the fragility of social order, the problem is thinking that social order requires people be confined in very unequal social cages.
    Spare me the old chestnut of cages of the conservatives, please!
    Again and again, this has proved to be flatly not true.
    Quite a few loosened moral or behavioural standards have had consequences, truly.
    The society conservatives were “defending” proved to be much more resilient, with far greater capacities for renewal, than they were willing to admit.
    No, the damage is all around us.

  20. C.L. says:

    Trying to use the law to prevent force social institutions evolving is pointlessly oppressive.

    FT for ya.

  21. The family as an institution is so important that we should stop being distracted by irrelevant things like “what gay people want to call their pre-existing relationship” and start considering the much more fundamental ways that recent history has undermined the family unit.

    The semantics used by gay people doesn’t cause divorce and family break-down. If gay people have their own dictionary that defines “marriage” differently, that will not change the number of children growing up in single-parent households.

    What causes family breakdown is that we have removed the previously strong economic and social incentives for building long-lasting family & friend networks.

    The solution is harsh in the short term, but vital in the long-term. We need to once again create a set of economic and social incentives that reward long term commitments to your family and punish people for not building family and friend networks. The best way to do that is to shrink the welfare state so that people once again notice that they literally need their family… even when they start to get annoyed by their snoring and even if they get a bit fat.

    We need to *stop* subsidizing broken families and we need to once again allow people to enter into voluntary “at-fault divorce” marriages.

    If you care about the family as an institution, then you should be concentrating on the issue of divorce… not the issue of gay semantics. If gay people called their marriage a “schmergen” it would not prevent one single divorce. Fail.

  22. Nanuestalker says:

    Trying to use the law to prevent social institutions evolving is pointlessly oppressive.

    SSM is an evolution of what exactly?

  23. coz says:

    More poofterganda from Catalepsy.

  24. Helen Armstgrong says:

    loving SS couples are deprived of the romance of marriage.

    Many people are denied the ‘romance of love in marriage’ – many who are arranged, for instance.

    I note this because it occurs to me – is marriage illegal if it is between two people who do not love each other?

  25. JamesK says:

    More profoundaganda from Coz

  26. steve from brisbane says:

    Not only are the talents of the group made much more accessible to the wider society, social resources are also no longer wasted repressing them.

    If only the talents of Cole Porter had been freed up by gay marriage, his unnoticed talent at popular music and Broadway shows may have been remedied.

  27. dover_beach says:

    Trying to use the law to prevent social institutions evolving is pointlessly oppressive.

    True, preventing social institutions from evolving is pointless, but no one here is preventing marriage from “evolving”. What is being defended here is the institution of marriage from a forced amalgamation with new social institution, SSR, through the intervention of the state. That is neither pointless nor oppressive.

  28. JC says:

    John Humphreys

    How about taking a quick look at the biggest commie redistribution racket in the country, which is the family court system set up with the sole purpose of destroying men.

    You can’t do what you what you suggest, which is a noble effort I might add and not re-think no fault divorce and its consequences aren’t playing a part.

    Libertarians just gloss over this.

  29. Infidel Tiger says:

    If you care about the family as an institution, then you should be concentrating on the issue of divorce…

    I liked Tim Blair’s suggestion that we allow flamboyant types to get hitched but not allow them to divorce.

  30. C.L. says:

    What is being defended here is the institution of marriage from a forced amalgamation with new social institution, SSR, through the intervention of the state.

    Right. Gay ‘marriage’ advocates are like Keynesians and Finkelsteinians.

  31. JC says:

    Shut up Stepford and go do the ironing.

  32. JamesK says:

    If only the talents of Cole Porter had been freed up by gay marriage, his unnoticed talent at popular music and Broadway shows may have been remedied.

    Or he could have been tormented by his latest ex or the ex before that or the one before that etc for 3 years in the Family law court and died in penury of AIDS

  33. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B. says:

    Hence also the notion of the enormous corrupting power of small groups.

    Welll may we be suspicious of some of these Lorenzo. Lenin, anyone?

    Emanicipation is a fine ideal, but conservatives should always question exactly what lies behind the rhetoric, what changes might actually be effected in the longer-term (as opposed to those that are up-front and on the table for discussion) , and look at the arguments for and against change.

    Fine feathers, my friend, but how well do they fly?

  34. dover_beach says:

    I actually agree more or less with John Humphrey’s comment above, although not the last bit, only because the task of achieving the former is made more difficult by conceding the latter.

  35. Rococo Liberal says:

    Words have meanings. All the government action in the world cannot make grass into a shrub. In the same way Governments cannot change the meaning of the word marriage by fiat.

    SS couples can set up their own churches or cermonial bodies and make up their own coupling codes. Then the problem is sorted.

    What these people want, though, is recognition by the state of their unions (SSUs). Fine, no-one has a problem with that, set up a special SSU Act and then go through all the legislation that uses the term ‘marriage’ and add the phrase ‘and SSU.’

    Why is the obvious so hard for the Gay taliban?

    Like so many activists they seem to have real trouble in going back to real life once the real battle is won. The problem with this of course is that the activists’ constituents usually end up worse off. Just look at the Aborigines.

  36. steve from brisbane says:

    I would also not that if the biggest bunch of spies causing havoc in British (and probably Western) intelligence services during the heyday of communism hadn’t been a bunch of academic homosexuals, gay service folk would probably not have been subject to the same interest from military police services that they did attract until the 1990’s.

  37. Jarrah says:

    “but no one here is preventing marriage from “evolving””

    That’s exactly what the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act was for. The evolution of the social institution of marriage frightened the conservative government into acting in order to forestall the trend towards marriage being available to all.

    Social institutions are defined by society. That’s how and why they evolve. The biggest problem we have is the dominant belief that government should be regulating social institutions (which is why the marriage equality movement instinctively concentrates on making SSM legal, rather than removing legality from the equation).

  38. Rabz says:

    … the biggest commie redistribution racket in the country, which is the family court system set up with the sole purpose of destroying men.

    This.

    The main reason why I will never get married or cohabit.

    What I saw happen to some of my friends in that kangaroo court literally put me off marriage forever.

    That said, no fault divorce and the legitimising of single motherhood as a way of life have been an absolute disaster for society.

    Just as frigging ‘progressives’ intended.

  39. Token says:

    Fine, no-one has a problem with that, set up a special SSU Act and then go through all the legislation that uses the term ‘marriage’ and add the phrase ‘and SSU

    You hit the nub of the issue.

    They need an issue to demonise and hate, else people would be able to look at the logic of the issues.

    That can not be allowed to happen as all would see their ideas are merely vapour around noble sounding intentions…

  40. C.L. says:

    The evolution of the social institution of marriage frightened the conservative government [and Julia Gillard, most of the ALP and Barack Obama] into acting in order to forestall the trend towards marriage being available to all.

    Trend?

    What, like 4 people wanted it?

  41. JamesK says:

    I would also not that if the biggest bunch of spies causing havoc in British (and probably Western) intelligence services during the heyday of communism hadn’t been a bunch of academic homosexuals, gay service folk would probably not have been subject to the same interest from military police services that they did attract until the 1990?s.

    On the brighter side of liar’s profound inner-imaginings, the BBC would have long ago been dissolved

  42. JamesK says:

    The evolution of the social institution of marriage frightened the conservative government into acting in order to forestall the trend towards marriage being available to all

    What? Howard prevented the child bride business?

  43. jtfsoon says:

    Peter Saunders’ musings on this are paranoid rubbish. As if a couple of Darlinghurst luvvies would want to overturn the ‘bourgeois’.

    I have never trusted sociologists to be consistently pro-freedom. It started out as a collectivist commie discipline and always will be.

  44. coz says:

    The ‘gay’ marriage issue has nothing to do with being ‘gay’, with love or equality or any other red herring buzz word.

    It’s all about battery farming of human cattle so they can milk us for tax. The farmer (ie state) needs to legally own the bull, the cow and the offspring.

  45. dover_beach says:

    That’s exactly what the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act was for.

    No. He simply made explicit what was previously implicit.

    Social institutions are defined by society.

    No. A knife is a cutting/ spreading implement even if I use it as screwdriver on the very odd occasion. Social institutions serve particular purposes; SSR is unrelated to the principal social function of marriage. BTW, if social institutions are “evolving”, what are they involving toward? And you can’t say the needs of the moment since institutions serve persisting social purposes across the generations.

    Anyway, more interesting to me is Lorenzo’s criticism of the claim, “unless the current limits are adhered to, there are no limits”. Well, what are they regarding sexuality?

  46. selen234 says:

    The gay lobby use this to further their own political çareers

    aka Greenwich and Team Clover in Sydney

    No gay marriage but gay careerists

  47. AJ says:

    Quite a few loosened moral or behavioural standards have had consequences, truly.

    There are plenty of countries currently that live up to the sexual and gender standards people idolise here. No such thing as no-fault divorce, punishments for homosexuality and adultery. Is there any evidence that Iran or Egypt have higher behavioural standards or a better society than Western countries?

  48. JamesK says:

    No such thing as no-fault divorce, punishments for homosexuality and adultery. Is there any evidence that Iran or Egypt have higher behavioural standards or a better society than Western countries?

    I notice you’re always thinking AJ.

  49. thefrollickingmole says:

    Ill accept the “not a slippery slope” when the following can be explained.

    IVF was originaly brought in for infertile couples, under that banner it ended up being largely financed by government.

    Apparently now it has expanded to include non-couples, this hasnt been debated, voted on or even recieved much publicity.
    Yet it puts the taxpayer on the hook for an outcome which would never have seen it passed originaly.

    Im more for removing “privelidges” from couple not available to singles myself.

  50. Hugh says:

    “one of the striking things about the various emancipation struggles is how society ended up working better, not worse, from their success.”

    Well, that rather depends on your point of view.

    To me, society is not better for the legalization of abortion. Half the deaths in the world are abortions.

    Society is not better off for no-fault divorce, as posters above have correctly observed.

    The emancipation of sexual activity from traditional moral restraints has, I think had disastrous consequences. Heck, even Raquel Welch agrees with that.

    With gay marriage legal, a class of children will be a priori deprived of the right to be conceived as a result of the marital act of natural parents, and to live with them as a family. Another “stolen generation” – one we won’t be apologizing for.

    I also don’t think universal suffrage as it’s currently working is improving society. Here’s proof. In the recent Queensland election, women aged from 18 to 25 living in Brisbane voted for the ALP by, as far as I remember, something like 60% !! If that’s not an argument for restricting the voting to women to over 25 (at least), I don’t know what is. I also believe that only taxpayers should have the vote, and (maybe) that families with children should be given an extra vote.

    The much lauded emancipation of women has also had its problems. Arguably women have sunk into bondage and moral darkness, while men are totally confused about how to play their proper role.

    In fact, apart from the abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of trade under free market capitalism (almost two sides of the one coin), I’m struggling to come with any evidence for this theory.

  51. Jarrah says:

    “No. He simply made explicit what was previously implicit.”

    Really. Just woke up one day and thought it needed doing, without any external stimulus, without any purpose other than clarity? Right.

    “A knife is a cutting/ spreading implement even if I use it as screwdriver on the very odd occasion.”

    Knives aren’t social institutions. Try again.

    “BTW, if social institutions are “evolving”, what are they involving toward?”

    Evolution doesn’t have a direction. That’s a creationist fallacy.

  52. Pedro says:

    A couple of silly things to identify:

    1 Social institutions don’t evolve like genes, they change because people change them. So it is obviously dumb to suggest that SSM is somehow contrary to the idea that social institutions evolve over time.

    2 I’ve yet to see anyone make a sensible argument argument against SSM. How the fuck does it hurt hetros?

    Also, so what if the poly’s want to get in for their chop. Where’s the harm?

    And Dover, social institutions do evolve toward current preferences. Otherwise they would cease to be social institutions.

  53. Jc says:

    AJ

    Are you actually trying to pull a fast one with that Iran and egypt comment. You idiot AJ. You clown.

  54. JamesK says:

    I’ve yet to see anyone make a sensible argument argument against SSM. How the fuck does it hurt hetros?

    Turn your leftist filter off.

  55. selen234 says:

    The divorce lawyers love gay couples

    They are good for the economy and they can afford them along with expensive gay weddings

    Great for tourism and pink dollars are great for cities like Sydney and Melbourne

  56. Xevram says:

    Evolution doesn’t have a direction. That’s a creationist fallacy Jarrah !!!!! ?????

    Surely you are not serious, that comment must be a joke.

  57. JamesK says:

    Surely you are not serious, that comment must be a joke.

    Xevram is confused Jarrah.

    He thought you were a progressive leftist.

    I understand his bewilderment.

    You’re internally inconsistent even in the same comment, just like the last one.

  58. dover_beach says:

    Really. Just woke up one day and thought it needed doing, without any external stimulus, without any purpose other than clarity?

    Did I say that? I regard his response to “external stimulus” a clarification given the confusion on this issue.

    Knives aren’t social institutions.

    Well, not in and of themselves, but they are part of a social institution. Fingers and moon, and all that.

    Evolution doesn’t have a direction. That’s a creationist fallacy.

    Institutions have purposes; these purposes cannot be particular but general. To what general purpose is this institution ‘evolving’ remembering that it still must include its predominant purpose, one that is not shared by SSR? (On the irrelevant matter: yes, it does; it’s called fitness. But instead of thinking of ‘direction’, think of ‘disposition’.)

  59. Lloydww says:

    If no one has any business in whether people of the same sex marry, then no one should have any business as to how many people choose to marry each or the age of the participants. (I was going to add something about considerations about species but nonhumans are by definition not people.)

    The fact remains that presently in our society, strict curbs are placed on both the numbers one can marry at any one time and their ages. Indeed, in the latter instance our law goes further – to have sexual relations with a minor is a felony.

    Neither of these prohibitions are repudiated by the gay marriage lobby, in fact they vehemently uphold these prohibitions, at least for the time being.

    So, society (or if you like, the Peepul) does have an interest in at least whether minors can marry or if someone can marry more than one other person even if I as an indIvidual choose not to care. Logically then, given that gay marriage is in the same class of taboo as these other practices, society has a right to say whether or not same sex marriage is permissible.

    The biggest furphy of this entire debate is the discrimination argument. It is little more than an upmarket version of emotional blackmail. After all, no one wants to be seen as being discriminatory.

    To give you an idea as to how specious the discrimination argument is, it’s necessary to go back to the gay marriage lobby’s own argument against polyamorous marriage which amounts to “there is little current demand”. Which is to say that the polyamorous community is very tiny therefore discrimination against them is OK. Whoops, see the big logical hole there? You can mount any argument you like against polyamorous marriage, in the end they are all “discriminatory” in one way or another.

    I would argue that the only test which should be applied is whether it is in our society’s interest to allow changes to the custom of marriage. And it is there that the gay marriage lobby is manifestly on shaky ground because there is absolutely bugger all benefit to society for gay unions to be called marriage and they know it, hence the appeal to our collective wish to be seen as inclusive and nondiscriminatory.

  60. dover_beach says:

    1 Social institutions don’t evolve like genes, they change because people change them. So it is obviously dumb to suggest that SSM is somehow contrary to the idea that social institutions evolve over time.

    Yes, but the argument is that SSR is institutional separate to marriage.

    2 I’ve yet to see anyone make a sensible argument argument against SSM.

    I’ve made any number, as have others. Look there are plenty of sensible arguments, you may not find them persuasive but they are sensible nevertheless.

    And Dover, social institutions do evolve toward current preferences. Otherwise they would cease to be social institutions.

    No, they satisfy enduring preferences which are current because they are enduring (I’ll grant you, that was rather clever of you) not merely the preferences that change from one generation to the next.

  61. JamesK says:

    If no one has any business in whether people of the same sex marry, then no one should have any business as to how many people choose to marry each or the age of the participants. (I was going to add something about considerations about species but nonhumans are by definition not people.)

    Lloydww is being too kind to leftists.

    According to (Peter)Singer, some humans are non-persons, while some non-human animals are persons.

  62. JamesK says:

    Where’s CL?

  63. m0nty says:

    Peter Saunders’ musings on this are paranoid rubbish. As if a couple of Darlinghurst luvvies would want to overturn the ‘bourgeois’.

    I have never trusted sociologists to be consistently pro-freedom. It started out as a collectivist commie discipline and always will be.

    (emphasis mine)

    Sometimes one forgets about the founder of this site. It is gratifying to be reminded now and again.

  64. Lysander Spooner says:

    Why is the gay agenda on every Q&A (the gay-b-c) show without fail?

  65. ar says:

    Obviously gay marriage wasn’t dealt with enough last night on Qanda.

    Hence, for example, assuming that unless heterosexuality as a compulsory norm is accepted, somehow one ends up with bestiality.

    Why does the counter argument have to warn of human-animal marriages? The devolution of marriage could offer the example of two dogs marrying and avoid a great deal of distastefulness.

    You can get your dog a credit card, so why not a marriage licence? One bark for no, two barks for I do….

  66. Token says:

    Why is the gay agenda on every Q&A (the gay-b-c) show without fail?

    It brings back the same handful of viewers each week so Q&A can make its below 5% ratings target.

    My first thought is the show will fold once the agenda is past, but as we know that Lefty’s have a shopping trolley of new found “rights” which you are tagged as “evvvaaallll” if you don’t un-thinkingly agree to.

  67. Forester says:

    It’s such a shame that two people in love are being used by Socialists as another grab for power over the rest of us. The marriage act should be abolished. Other laws exist to protect minors and cruelty to animals.

  68. . says:

    I have never trusted sociologists to be consistently pro-freedom. It started out as a collectivist commie discipline and always will be.

    Correct. Liberty quote that man!

  69. Jim Rose says:

    Doug Allen in his writings on the economics of marriage challenges you to describe marriage to a 19 year old male:
    • Marriage is all about responsibility, monogamy and a painful exit if things go awry.

    • Yes, there is the prospect of children, and mutual support, but only if you sign up to child support obligations, community property rules and many other constraints that are enforceable.

    why would any 19-year old want this?

  70. Big Jim says:

    In the Stonewall era, conservatives who said “one day they’ll expect to marry each other” were derided as alarmists and ‘slippery slopers’.

    The big push is now on for reproductive rights. Orientation is genetic, right? (repeat shibboleth ten times). So, with fewer closeted breeders in place these days, the seeds are sown (ouch) for a genetic dead-end, unless the Elton John option becomes widespread.

    I don’t believe Oscar Wilde or E.M. Forster would have cared if they were the last gay men on Earth (at least on their death beds). But now that homosexuality is political (and hence corporatized), numbers matter.

  71. JamesK says:

    why would any 19-year old want this

    The desire to committ to another +/- start a family

    The desire for adulthood independent of upbringing

    The bloke is well off

    The sex is good

    Love


    Just guessin’

  72. Jim Rose says:

    is the average age of marriage still under 30 these days? Do teenage marriages last long?

  73. selen234 says:

    Social institutions change….

    Especially when homcons use them as a vehicle for their own pr and analysis

    the great public and private agreement i guess

  74. Jarrah says:

    “Institutions have purposes; these purposes cannot be particular but general. To what general purpose is this institution ‘evolving’ remembering that it still must include its predominant purpose, one that is not shared by SSR?”

    That’s my point – the perception of marriage’s purpose is evolving. Ask a random sample what marriage means to them, you’ll find ‘love’ and ‘commitment’ feature very heavily, not so much with ‘solidifying family alliances’ and ‘ensuring offspring legitimacy’, for example.

  75. Quentin George says:

    I am amused by the idea that people have a right to be conceived in a certain way.

  76. Chrisse says:

    This is not an issue of “homosexual marriage” – it is an issue concerning the redefinition of marriage by government fiat. The only way there can be a “homosexual marriage” is to redefine the meaning of marriage.

    This brings us to the point that if, by government fiat, the meaning of marriage is redefined to mean “love” “commitment” – and other nonsense fantasies from a Barbara Cartland novel – just why is the government involved anymore? Will we be able to sue the government if they fail to provide us with a “love” partner, if they fail to provide us with a “commitment” partner.

    First, define just what is the essential public purpose of marriage that warrants the Marriage Act in the first place. At it’s most basic – to link daddy to bubby. Not only would we be redefining marriage, we would by extension be redefining parentage, with biology no longer the norm, but with a judge determining a parent by other means.

  77. dover_beach says:

    Yes, love and commitment do feature heavily, as do children, which you conveniently left out. And, of course, love and commitment also serve the interests of the child/ren, not merely those of the partners themselves. It was because of these essential features that marriage served to also ‘solidifying family alliances’ as well as ‘ensur[e] offspring legitimacy’. Remove the element of procreation, and you cannot make sense of the requirement of exclusivity or of marriage being a life-long commitment.

  78. selen234 says:

    Exclusivity of marriage?

    When you get a drive thru marriage in Vegas ,its not that special anymore

    Kd Lang

  79. Jarrah says:

    “The only way there can be a “homosexual marriage” is to redefine the meaning of marriage.”

    Since it’s in a constant state of being defined and redefined by the people practicing it, I don’t see the problem.

    “just why is the government involved anymore?”

    Yes, I agree. Government is not needed. I’m still waiting for a single reason why it should be involved, beyond standard contract enforcement.

    “as do children, which you conveniently left out.”

    What do you think ‘offspring’ mean?

    The fact is, a third of children are born to unmarried parents (and growing). Obviously, marriage isn’t as crucial to procreation as you like to think.

  80. Pedro says:

    Dover, Why shouldn’t gays get to marry in civil services and become legally wed under the marriage act? The past is not an argument for any form of future on this issue.

    I think it’s pretty well established that:
    1 anti-gay is a stupid religious idea
    2 religion is stupid
    3 historical prejudices based on stupidity can be abandoned without harm as long as it does happen to quickly
    4 not enough people could give a fuck for anyone to worry much about it now.

    If I think about the social evolution of this issue in my 50 years I can’t but come to the conclusion the debate is dumb. As a young catholic I thought poofters were bad. When there turned out to be a few in my boarding school it was a big scandal (weirdly, it wasn’t any of the brother so far as we knew). Meeting actual gays after school changed my mind pretty quick. Now I just can’t think of a reason why the State should let my wife and I marry and not to gays.

    And I didn’t think any of your arguments were sensible.

  81. manalive says:

    Remove the element of procreation, and you cannot make sense of the requirement of exclusivity or of marriage being a life-long commitment….

    With a fertility rate of just under 2, how is child rearing a life-long commitment?
    What of infertile couples?
    There are many homosexual relationships which last a lifetime, e.g. Gore Vidal and Howard Austin (over 60 years), a relationship which Gore claimed was platonic.
    The issue is irrelevant — I like Tim Blair’s suggestion.

  82. Dandy Warhol says:

    Pedro,

    The argument of the ‘Keep Marriage Hetero’ bunch seems to be ‘You’ve never had it before, so you can’t have it now or in the future’.

    Completely ignoring the fact that the reasons homosexuals weren’t accepted in society, let alone be allowed to marry, was because homosexuality was seen as a monstrous perversion and therefore taboo.

    Hardly fair, is it: ‘We wouldn’t let you have marriage before, and we won’t let you have marriage now because we wouldn’t let you have marriage before.’

    Must be a competitive entry for David Stove’s ‘worst argument in the world’ competition.

  83. blogstrop says:

    That’s so gay, Dandy.

  84. . says:

    Exclusivity of marriage?

    When you get a drive thru marriage in Vegas ,its not that special anymore

    Kd Lang

    haha, gold!

  85. dover_beach says:

    Jarrah:
    What do you think ‘offspring’ mean?

    Don’t be cute, Jarrah, you used it in the context of “ensuring offspring legitimacy”, so I interpreted this to be emphasizing legitimacy.

    The fact is, a third of children are born to unmarried parents (and growing). Obviously, marriage isn’t as crucial to procreation as you like to think.

    You know, I’m getting heartily sick of these glib responses. Have I ever argued that procreation cannot occur outside of marriage? Don’t you think the argument I’m presenting implies that children are best served by being generated and cared for with the institution of marriage?

    Pedro:
    Why shouldn’t gays get to marry in civil services and become legally wed under the marriage act?

    Because gays ‘marrying’ serves no public interest and therefore shouldn’t be matter for public regulation.

    manalive:
    There are many homosexual relationships which last a lifetime, e.g. Gore Vidal and Howard Austin (over 60 years), a relationship which Gore

    So what? It wasn’t being argued that no SSRs are life-long. I said that there is no reason why SSR should be life-long or exclusive; not that no SSRs are can ever be life-long or exclusive.

    dandy warhol:
    ‘You’ve never had it before, so you can’t have it now or in the future’.

    No, the argument is that the institution of SSR fails to meet the purposes of marriage.

    Completely ignoring the fact that the reasons homosexuals weren’t accepted in society, let alone be allowed to marry, was because homosexuality was seen as a monstrous perversion and therefore taboo.

    And this involves the problem that you’re using the word marriage to merely denote a simple relationship, and not a type of relationship. Still, let’s imagine it wasn’t taboo in the past, the two types of relationship would have been considered separately; marriage as traditionally conceived, and SSR as a particularly type of friendship.

    Must be a competitive entry for David Stove’s ‘worst argument in the world’ competition.

    Luckily, that isn’t my argument.

  86. JamesK says:

    The past is not an argument for any form of future on this issue.

    Very ‘progressive’ of you, Pedro.

    A quick shrug of the shoulders is probably not even necessary for Ped to dispense with the institution of marriage as it has been understood in all of recorded history in our judeo-christian-classical-liberal culture.

    Of course progressives – like their direct progenitor Marx – loathe our culture.

    So the 6000 year cornerstone institution of our civil society can be dispensed with in less than 1 generation by enlightened thugs like Ped , dot, Yobbo, Abu, dd et al.

    Questions like the following are sneered at out of hand:

    No need to weigh rationale against risks at all?

    Are there likely to unintended consequences?

    Are there eminently predictable negative sequelae?

    Nah!

    Comme ci, comme ça!

    Who cares?

    It’s no skin of my nose!

    All opposition are just ignorant homophobes

    etc etc

    Deep and meaningful thoughts there Pedro

    It’s the glib unserious and unintelligent nature of the non-debate debate as evinced by morons like Pedro that’s so utterly depressing.

    Note it’s not his view peer se that’s moronic it’s his pat unintelligence in the face of such a major significant shift.

    The answer, I suspect, is the leftist nirvana of negating gender difference

  87. . says:

    No, the argument is that the institution of SSR fails to meet the purposes of marriage.

    No, your purposes.

    But it isn’t your marriage.

    Do you really think you’ve got a role in saying what other people should get out of a marriage?

  88. Pedro says:

    Exactly dandy. It’s one of those things where you can self identify as a dopey old fuddy duddy or fess up to being wrong and bigoted.

    You don’t have to point out that lots of other traditional elements of the acien social fabric were wicked. It’s the complete absence of any possible harm to society that one can identify as flowing from two lezzos jumping the broomstick

  89. . says:

    So the 6000 year cornerstone institution of our civil society can be dispensed with in less than 1 generation by enlightened thugs like Ped , dot, Yobbo, Abu, dd et al.

    Until recently men couldn’t legally rape their wives and in Western countries dowries were paid and women treated as chattel.

    Some cornerstone.

  90. Infidel Tiger says:

    There are many homosexual relationships which last a lifetime, e.g. Gore Vidal and Howard Austin (over 60 years), a relationship which Gore claimed was platonic.

    Vidal claimed he only liked masturbation, which will surprise nobody whoever had the displeasure or reading that god damn queers scribblings.

  91. Paul says:

    Why the unseemly rush to define marriage in the most convenient way possible depending on the argument being advanced? Didn’t anyone know what it was before?

  92. JamesK says:

    Until recently men couldn’t legally rape their wives and in Western countries dowries were paid and women treated as chattel.

    I’ve said this before but you are a fuckwit dot.

    As dot pointed out dot’s repsonses are pitiful, tourette-like sophistry.

    dot retorts he doesn’t respond.

  93. JamesK says:

    As d-b pointed out

  94. Jarrah says:

    “No, your purposes.”

    Bingo.

    Dover, no-one is saying you have to change your definition of marriage. Just that you shouldn’t use the power of the state to enforce that definition, especially when the majority reject it.

    “Have I ever argued that procreation cannot occur outside of marriage?”

    No, but you’ve clinging to an empirically bereft conception of marriage, relying on an outdated procreation-is-central model. The plain and simple facts that children are not essential to marriage, and marriage is not essential to children, apparently don’t make any impression on you.

    “Don’t you think the argument I’m presenting implies that children are best served by being generated and cared for with the institution of marriage?”

    Then you should be championing gay marriage so that the children they are raising can benefit! Oh, wait, gay marriage “isn’t marriage”, because something something children.

  95. . says:

    I’ve said this before but you are a fuckwit dot.

    As dot pointed out dot’s repsonses are pitiful, tourette-like sophistry.

    dot retorts he doesn’t respond.

    That’s literally the extent of your argument when I turn up.

    You can’t argue about this issue, you bring up shallow arguments and don’t like it when you are easily bested by me.

    Maybe you can tell us why legalised rape is a “cornerstone” of society.

  96. JamesK says:

    You can’t argue about this issue,

    Don’t be a twat all your life dot.

    You haven’t made a single argument, counter argument or rebuttal worthy of the name on this issue ever.

    Grow up you pathetic child.

  97. . says:

    You haven’t made a single argument, counter argument or rebuttal worthy of the name on this issue ever.

    I have made several.

    Grow up you pathetic child.

    Good for you, you don’t like me.

    I don’t care.

    I’m ready to argue when you’re ready to stop being an intellectual coward and answer some questions.

  98. dover_beach says:

    No, your purposes. But it isn’t your marriage. Do you really think you’ve got a role in saying what other people should get out of a marriage?

    According to dot, marriage isn’t an institution because it serves no general purpose. In fact, there is no such thing as marriage (a universal), there are just particular what? I don’t know. To identify the what is to identify a universal. Yes, probably better off just abolishing the marriage act because it would be terribly wicked of us to distinguish X from Y, because distinguishing is discriminating and that is bigoted and wrong.

  99. JamesK says:

    I have made several.

    No. You haven’t.

    Just asserting that nonsense doesn’t make your serial offensive inanities an argument.

  100. . says:

    According to dot, marriage isn’t an institution because it serves no general purpose.

    It does.

    Just not the purpose you say it must.

    It merely does that often.

    Yes, probably better off just abolishing the marriage act because it would be terribly wicked of us to distinguish X from Y, because distinguishing is discriminating and that is bigoted and wrong.

    Correct, especially when you are using money coercively collected from taxpayers to enforce a bizarre hybrid of Victorian era and pre patient zero morals.

  101. . says:

    No. You haven’t.

    Just asserting that nonsense doesn’t make your serial offensive inanities an argument.

    James you cannot even defend your statement that marriage has been a cornerstone of society for 6000 years.

  102. dover_beach says:

    Dover, no-one is saying you have to change your definition of marriage. Just that you shouldn’t use the power of the state to enforce that definition, especially when the majority reject it.

    Nominalism.

    No, but you’ve clinging to an empirically bereft conception of marriage, relying on an outdated procreation-is-central model. The plain and simple facts that children are not essential to marriage, and marriage is not essential to children, apparently don’t make any impression on you.

    You’ve played this game in the past. You argue that children are only incidental to marriages, but when I point out that love too is only incidental to marriages, because of the empirical cases of loveless marriages, you fall silent. Or you move ground to: when surveyed people associate love with marriage. And strangly, all of this, even though I’ve explicitly and repeatedly stated I’m not arguing that every marriage requires love or children, but they are features of the institution of marriage.

  103. dover_beach says:

    It does.

    Oh, it does serve general purpose/s.

    Just not the purpose you say it must.

    I never said it must, as in every marriage must. When I say marriage must I’m referring to the institution. If the institution doesn’t, then it is not marriage but something else.

    Just not the purpose you say it must. It merely does that often.

    It’s not merely; that would be like saying planes merely fly often.

  104. Pedro says:

    marriage is a legal relationship.

    The fact that poofters couldn’t marry in the past is not a reason to stop them now. The people claiming discrimination should occur are the once who have to make the case. Those of us who say discrimination should be removed don’t have to justify it.

    Past discrimination is not an argument. God hates that is obviously puerile and even the biggest nongs won’t fall into the error of self-identifying as an obvious fuckwit.

  105. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Good to see you back Pedro.

  106. Pedro says:

    Dover,do you think marriage has evolved in the past, or has always been the institution we recognise today?

  107. JamesK says:

    marriage is a legal relationship.

    The fact that poofters couldn’t marry in the past is not a reason to stop them now.

    The fact is that “poofters” could marry in the past and can marry now.

  108. Pedro says:

    I’ve never been away, just not often minded to comment. I don’t mind robust discussion, but it must be discussion, not mindless abuse.

  109. Pedro says:

    What got me in was this bit of rare silliness from Hayek
    ” 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.”

  110. Jarrah says:

    “You argue that children are only incidental to marriages, but when I point out that love too is only incidental to marriages, because of the empirical cases of loveless marriages, you fall silent.”

    That’s false. Besides, it’s fallacious – I don’t posit universals for marriage, that’s your position.

    “but they are features of the institution of marriage.”

    Of some marriages. And are therefore not universals. Sheesh, talk about playing games.

  111. Pedro says:

    JamesK, the problem with being half smart is that the half bit is the defining characteristic.

  112. Sinclair Davidson says:

    it must be discussion, not mindless abuse

    So you’ve decided to participate in one of the endless gay marriage threads. 🙂

    no brainer – loving your argument and Jarrah too.

  113. Pedro says:

    Jarrah, Dover’s argument boils down to “X is not Y, QED!”

    I’ll give him kudos when he comes back with X is not Y for these reasons and they justify the maintenance of the separation.

  114. Pedro says:

    Yes Sinc, but maybe I’m in the mood for it tonight.

    BTW, I enjoyed your little chat on Sunday. But how did two low-taxers get on the ABC together?

  115. JamesK says:

    JamesK, the problem with being half smart is that the half bit is the defining characteristic.

    That’s meaningless.

    I gather we’re likely to get loads of ‘meaningless’ from you.

    You should pair up with dot and Jarrah.

    You speak their language Pedro.

  116. Sinclair Davidson says:

    No idea. John McLaren used to be at RMIT and I knew him from then, so when I saw him on the program I was a bit surprised. On the day before the show I said that I hoped that the ABC had someone else because John and I would be in total agreement.

    To be fair Jonathan Green is a total professional. He has his views but he wants a good story and want people to make the arguments. I first met him when he was editor at Crikey and IMHO he was very good then and is still good now.

  117. Marky says:

    I’m not really active about this topic, though I am gay, but my biggest problem with the whole argument is that it’s largely conducted on weak logic or emotional arguments, on both sides.

    Gay marriage advocates don’t acknowledge the fact that they aren’t really denied any rights, per se, they can still marry a woman they don’t love.

    Opponents don’t address the inconsistency of the ‘procreation’ argument, by conceding that if you set this as a bar for marriage then, to be fair, you have to go around revoking marriage certificates of any couple who can’t or don’t want to have children.

    There are more, but I don’t wanna post a wall of text, here.

  118. JamesK says:

    And he’s a dab hand at violent thrashing of a dummy as well Sinc.

  119. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Gay marriage advocates don’t acknowledge the fact that they aren’t really denied any rights, per se, they can still marry a woman they don’t love.

    What about marrying the person you love?

  120. Pedro says:

    Yeah, it was a good session.

    Keep digging JamesK. At the bottom of the hole is the secret to seeming smart when you’re really dumb as a stump.

  121. Sinclair Davidson says:

    JamesK – Pedro is an old and respected friend.

  122. JamesK says:

    A refreshing contribution Marky.

    Rational and serious.

    I don’t agree procreation/pedagogy arguments are inconsistent but you have made a very welcome appropriately respectful of the issue first comment.

    Welcome.

  123. JamesK says:

    JamesK – Pedro is an old and respected friend.

    I wasn’t referring to Pedro Sinc but your other friend.

    Apologies to Pedro if he saw it that way to.

  124. JamesK says:

    As in pinata and John Howard Sinc….. just in care it’s still not clear

  125. Marky says:

    What about marrying the person you love?

    I’m a little confused – did I make a mistake?

    After reading over your reply a few times, I think I understand – apologies if I got it wrong – your question was “aren’t gays denied the right to marry the person they love?”

    If I understand correctly, well, I think everybody should be able to marry the person they love, but is that enshrined as one of our civil rights? I’m not super well-versed in that area…

  126. Sinclair Davidson says:

    JamesK – sorry.

    I don’t care about the piñata thing. I care about the fact that he cares about public debate and argument. He isn’t a totalitarian – he want people to make an argument and debate.

  127. JamesK says:

    I don’t care about the piñata thing. I care about the fact that he cares about public debate and argument. He isn’t a totalitarian – he want people to make an argument and debate.

    You’re probably the best advocate he’s got then because of who you are.

    I hope you’re right.

  128. Sinclair Davidson says:

    they can still marry a woman they don’t love.

    Marky – that is the issue. You shouldn’t have to marry the woman you don’t love.

  129. Marky says:

    A refreshing contribution Marky.

    Rational and serious.

    I don’t agree procreation/pedagogy arguments are inconsistent but you have made a very welcome appropriately respectful of the issue first comment.

    Welcome.

    Thank you, JamesK. I’m open to being wrong about the procreation bit! I think there’s a lot to be said for growing up with a mum and a dad. Never met a kid with two mums or two dads, myself, so I dunno how different it is, if at all. Interesting area for discussion, though! 🙂

  130. JamesK says:

    Interesting area for discussion, though!

    What did you think of Lorenzo’s piece at Skeptic Lawyer?

  131. Marky says:

    Marky – that is the issue. You shouldn’t have to marry the woman you don’t love.

    I think the government’s role in marriage should be “all in, or all out”, so to speak, either they marry anyone or no-one. As for the “all in” option, one objection I can see (valid or not) is that, even if they refuse to perform the ceremony, any religion that refused access to their facilities to gay couples could lose tax-exempt status on that property, if they held that status. I’m not sure of that, though. Being atheist, I don’t think they should be exempt from tax if the rest of us have to fork out, anyway, though.

  132. JamesK says:

    I think the government’s role in marriage should be “all in, or all out”, so to speak, either they marry anyone

    A 10 year old girl and her widower father?

    What discriminating restrictions, if any, do you advocate Marky and why?

  133. Sinclair Davidson says:

    What did you think of Lorenzo’s piece at Skeptic Lawyer?

    Whole bits I disagreed with, bit I did agree with.

  134. Marky says:

    What did you think of Lorenzo’s piece at Skeptic Lawyer?

    Firstly, I don’t think Lorenzo does himself any favours with the constant attacks on conservatives. I don’t exactly agree that this is a civil rights issue on par with some of the others he listed, either, I think it’s a quality of life issue (is there a real objective difference between that and civil rights issues? I’m not sure).

    I agree with his comment that “…the group in question then becomes invested in the existing social order, rather than alienated from it.” As an analogue, I think it shows that integrated immigrants contribute much better to a multi-ethnic society than un-integrated immigrants.

    I also think he has a point about the “slippery slope” argument, when he referenced the fears of society devolving into bestiality. Zoophilia will occur with or without gay marriage, and if zoophiles want the right to marry animals, that’s their fight – an uphill battle, one might add, given that animals cannot give consent.

    A 10 year old girl and her widower father?

    What discriminating restrictions, if any, do you advocate Marky and why?

    Re: the example, I’d certainly hope not! My discriminating restrictions would be two consenting adults, not in violation of any other law. Neither children nor animals can give consent to marry, and to have sex with either is against the law because they similarly can’t give consent to have sex.

    As for limiting the number to two individuals, I’d say that simply because it limits the potential for abuse for, say, tax purposes. Even now, if two people were really committed to the idea, a gay man and a gay woman (or any other male/female combination) can get married solely for the benefits. Limiting the number of people involved to two, I think, limits the potential for abuse.

  135. JamesK says:

    The consent issue is a hello f alot more complex than you suggest, however more importantly you are in fact in favour of SSM.

    What are your arguments to the forced amalgamation of the institution of marriage with new social institution, SSR, through the intervention of the state, (to use dover’s expression)?

  136. JamesK says:

    hello f alot = helluva klt

  137. JamesK says:

    Damn spellchecker!

    helluva lot

  138. Marky says:

    The consent issue is a hello f alot more complex than you suggest, however more importantly you are in fact in favour of SSM.

    What are your arguments to the forced amalgamation of the institution of marriage with new social institution, SSR, through the intervention of the state, (to use dover’s expression)?

    Sure, I agree that consent is a complex issue and it’s difficult to discuss while trying to keep a comment as small as possible. What specifically did you have in mind as complicating factors, out of curiosity? I’ve been trying to think of some.

    Re: the “dover’s expression” bit, I think this is one of the areas where the issue gets hairy because of the way ‘marriage’ is used interchangably to refer to both the government-conferred status and the social construct. In my opinion, government cannot force someone who does not want to, to see something as anything other than what it is – ie. a law stating that the word ‘red’ is now ‘blue’ cannot change the fundamental nature of red and blue.

    In that case, I think that for the purposes of the law, the word ‘marriage’ should be removed, and the same status be conferred upon all couples. That would, I think, simplify the issue and should be an acceptable compromise for everyone involved – if you advocate traditional marriage, you can still argue that same-sex partnerings aren’t really marriage, but doing so doesn’t actually impact them at all. Same-sex couples could likewise hold a “marriage ceremony”, get their certificate, have the government recognise their partnership, consider themselves married, to the detriment of no-one else. Let’s take the debate of the use of the word ‘marriage’ out of the hands of government and settle it among the people.

  139. JamesK says:

    Thanks for that long response Marky but it misses the real question.

    I think that for the purposes of the law, the word ‘marriage’ should be removed,

    That is never going to happen.

    People are still hugely supportive of the institution of marriage and over 60% of marriages have only a civil ceremony.

    People want to get married!

    So either you support SSM or you don’t.

    All I was asking is that given that the discrimination argument is pissweak, what other reason or reasons have you for wanting to change the institution of marriage as it has been understood for 6000 years?

  140. JamesK says:

    Bedtime

  141. John of Mel says:

    Jarrah Then you should be championing gay marriage so that the children they are raising can benefit!

    The problem is they won’t.

    Summary:
    When compared with outcomes for children raised by an “intact biological family” (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures. (The only exceptions: children of “gay fathers” were more likely to vote; children of lesbians used alcohol less frequently; and children of “gay fathers” used alcohol at the same rate as those in intact biological families).

  142. JamesK says:

    This is one of the most insidious methods of the Left, John of Mel.

    The insist on studies to ‘prove’ something as obvious as a child is best served by being brought up in a nuclear family unit.

    The subsequent studies are from the Department of Wimminses Sociology etc and surprise surprise…….

  143. Jarrah says:

    “The problem is they won’t.”

    As always, I’m sceptical of single papers in isolation, but this is a poor study to hang your beliefs on anyway. The structure of the questionnaire and the analysis meant that Regnerus effectively studied children of unstable or broken homes, not children of same-sex partners. It’s no wonder he found bad outcomes.

  144. John of Mel says:

    Nevertheless it is the best and most extensive study in this area so far (and by far).
    But I know it won’t change your mind. In fact I don’t think any study can do that.

  145. Jarrah says:

    “Nevertheless it is the best and most extensive study in this area so far (and by far).”

    So despite me pointing out serious flaws in the study, that essentially make it worthless, it’s still “the best”? OK, then.

  146. John of Mel says:

    From the study:
    “The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements.”

    It’s a random sample – not “children of unstable or broken homes”. But from this study one can conclude that children raised by SS “parents” do not do any better than children from other types of unstable or broken homes.

    Another obvious conclusion that you can’t dismiss is that traditional family is the best social structure to raise children.

  147. AJ says:

    It’s a random sample – not “children of unstable or broken homes”. But from this study one can conclude that children raised by SS “parents” do not do any better than children from other types of unstable or broken homes.

    It says nothing about people who are “raised” by same-sex parents. If it says anything at all, it says something about people who have at least one biological parent who engaged in a same-sex behaviour. That biological parent didn’t have to live with the survey respondent and that behaviour did not have to be ongoing for the respondent to qualify as a child of a gay or lesbian parent.

    To outline the ridiculousness of trying to reach the conclusions that you are from the survey, less than 1 percent of the respondents that indicated having a gay father was conceived with the intention of being raised by same-sex parent(s).

  148. Jarrah says:

    Apparently you don’t know much about the study at all, and have cited it just because it appears to confirm your biases.

    Here’s a dialogue between a critic and Regnerus. I draw your attention to this part, to which Regnerus had no substantive response. It doesn’t cover all the issues, so I recommend reading the rest of the exchange.

    Hi, Mark. I appreciate your willingness to engage questions about this study. At this point in the conversation, here’s where I think we are on the central issues.

    1. Does the New Family Structures Study show any difference in child outcomes between IBFs (intact biological families) and same-sex households of similar duration? No. To the extent that the NFSS found a pattern of worse outcomes among children of “lesbian mothers” compared to children of IBFs, the “lesbian mother” group actually consisted mostly of kids who, by your account, had spent less than “a good share of a year or more” living with a mom and her lesbian partner. The most common age at which kids reported living with a mom and her partner was 14, so it’s unclear what kind of family structure these kids grew up in from birth to age 13. As you note, the two cases in which you found same-sex couples that stayed together for all 18 years of the child’s upbringing weren’t enough to generate statistically valid comparisons. To the extent that you found a pattern among the six kids who had lived with a mom and her lesbian partner for at least 13 years, the pattern was that those kids “fared better on more outcomes than did their less-stable peers.”

    2. Does the NFSS show that gay parents, per se, are more prone to unstable relationships than straight parents are? No. Because the study excluded any respondent who was younger than 18 as of February 2012, all the kids in the sample were born between 1971 and 1994. During this time, gay sex was illegal in many states, and gay marriage was illegal everywhere. Formal commitment between same-sex partners was unsupported, discouraged, and impeded. To separate inherent propensities from such environmental factors, we’d have to compare the NFSS data to studies of kids raised in a culture and legal system more accepting of same-sex commitments.

    3. Does the NFSS provide a more statistically valid sample of same-sex households than prior studies have offered? No. What the NFSS targeted and yielded was a representative sample of adults who said that at least one of their parents had, at some point during the respondent’s childhood, engaged in a same-sex romantic relationship. Within this sample, the number of respondents who were raised in same-sex households for five years or more (18) was smaller than the samples used in all but a handful of the 59 prior studies that purportedly indicated “no difference” between gay and straight parenting. This makes the NFSS subsample technically more representative, but statistically meaningless.

    The more statistically meaningful the NFSS subsample becomes, through the addition of cases in which a child actually spent very little time in a same-sex household, the less it represents parenting by same-sex couples. We end up with a bunch of “no difference” samples from prior studies, skewed by education and socioeconomic status, versus an NFSS sample skewed by a focus on relationship behavior rather than family structure. Which of these biases skews the data more? We simply don’t know.

  149. C.L. says:

    …the traditional family is the best social structure to raise children.

    Right. This is axiomatic but note well that denialists and the Gay Taliban have responded by trying to have the author banned and punished.

  150. C.L. says:

    Here’s a dialogue between a critic and Regnerus.

    Jarrah’s wilfully unnamed “critic” is notorious anti-Catholic, anti-‘homophobia’ campaigner William Saletan.

  151. JamesK says:

    Answer this question Jarrah:

    Is a child – all things being equal – optimally brought up in a

    (a): nuclear family

    (b): ss parent family

    (c): single parent

    (d): nobody knows

    (e): (a) and (b) equal but better than (c)

  152. AJ says:

    …the traditional family is the best social structure to raise children.

    Right. This is axiomatic but note well that denialists and the Gay Taliban have responded by trying to have the author banned and punished.

    ~1/2 of the respondents who had gay parents were born into a traditional heterosexual marriage.

  153. Pedro says:

    “What are your arguments to the forced amalgamation of the institution of marriage with new social institution, SSR, through the intervention of the state, (to use dover’s expression)?”

    Category error:
    Here is the institution of marriage
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/

    Logical errors:
    Unless the institution of marriage is unchanged through the ages you can’t argue that a change should not occur just because it is a change. You have to show how the change causes social harm.
    Second, identify the democratic means by which the institution of marriage evolved from its earliest forms to what you seem to think its apogee sometime before 1975. That way you can justify the concern about changes forced by the State.

  154. JamesK says:

    4000 BCE marriage: 1 man, 1 woman, exclusive

    2000 AD marriage: 1 man, 1 woman, exclusive

    What “category error”, you logically error-ed scheming dunce?

  155. Pedro says:

    “Another obvious conclusion that you can’t dismiss is that traditional family is the best social structure to raise children.”
    “This is axiomatic but note well that denialists and the Gay Taliban have responded by trying to have the author banned and punished.”

    It’s also irrelevant unless you want to argue that the children of two lezzos shouldn’t be born? Or that we should snatch them at birth to have raised by a loving christian couple of nice safe hetros?

  156. Infidel Tiger says:

    It’s also irrelevant unless you want to argue that the children of two lezzos shouldn’t be born?

    How’d they have the kid?

  157. Infidel Tiger says:

    Homosexuality is nature’s way of telling you kids aren’t for you. You still have a world of possibilities ahead of you like gymnastics, diving and hairdressing, so it’s not all bad.

  158. JamesK says:

    It’s also irrelevant unless you want to argue that the children of two lezzos shouldn’t be born?

    Do you ever actually think before you type?

    What you have written is a category error of quite a few known fallacies of argument.

    It’s an insult to any one with an IQ > 60

  159. John of Mel says:

    Homosexuality is nature’s way of telling you kids aren’t for you.

    That’s a very questionable statement.
    I have a friend who until a certain point in his life was homosexual. After that point he never looked back. Now he has three kids.

  160. Pedro says:

    “4000 BCE marriage: 1 man, 1 woman, exclusive

    2000 AD marriage: 1 man, 1 woman, exclusive.”

    LOL
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-big-question-whats-the-history-of-polygamy-and-how-serious-a-problem-is-it-in-africa-1858858.html

    “What “category error”, you logically error-ed scheming dunce?”
    Marriage is an institution of the state so obviously the state can change it, as it often has in the past. It’s a category error because your argument requires the institution to be a non-state institution.

    You should stop calling me a dummy when you’re the one saying the silly things.

  161. Pedro says:

    Here’s a good one for you traditionalists

    “As a polygynous society, the Israelites did not have any laws which imposed marital fidelity on men.[40][41] Adulterous married women and adulterous betrothed women, however, were subject to the death penalty by the biblical laws against adultery, as were their male accomplices.[42][43][44] According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, if a pregnant[45] woman was suspected of adultery, she was to be subjected to the Ordeal of Bitter Water,[46] a form of trial by ordeal, but one that took a miracle to convict. The literary prophets indicate that adultery was a frequent occurrence, despite their strong protests against it,[47][48][49][50] and these legal strictnesses.[40]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_marriage

  162. JamesK says:

    Oooooh the ‘polygamy argument’.

    I refuse to read your hyperlink to the Independent

    Does the ultra-leftist rag blame the ‘Jooos’ Peddie?

    In times where the tribe itself was threatened with extinction, there is at least a conceivable rationale for the greater good to those that could afford have a multiple wifes for even more children for the nascent weak society.

    Great thinkers, philosophers and theologians (and especially the greatest Jewish theologians of the ancient world) spoke out against polygamy, incest, racism, sexism, etc etc throughout those 6000 years

    Which great thinker spoke out against marriage being exclusively and discriminatingly between 1 man and 1 woman, Pedro?

    Clearly, the low road is your natural path Pedro

  163. Pedro says:

    “How’d they have the kid?”

    Ah, so the solution is to ban them getting pregnant. What are your thoughts, sterilisation at the first sign of clam-diving tendencies?

  164. JamesK says:

    Ah, so the solution is to ban them getting pregnant.

    Who suggested that, Pedro?

    You rodent

  165. Jarrah says:

    “all things being equal”

    There’s the problem, JamesK. All things are not equal, but when efforts are made to account for all other factors, the effect of parental gender seems to be indiscernible. More research is always welcome.

  166. JamesK says:

    More research is always welcome.</b

    LOL

    The leftist patina of reasonableness.

    Answer the question above I posed for you, Jarrah otherwise fuck off with your 'insights'

  167. Jarrah says:

    “Answer the question above I posed for you,”

    I thought I had.

  168. Infidel Tiger says:

    Ah, so the solution is to ban them getting pregnant. What are your thoughts, sterilisation at the first sign of clam-diving tendencies?

    No need to sterilise. Being a lezzo or a poof leaves you sterile for all intents and purposes. It is only when they stray from nature’s calling that they can conceive.

  169. JamesK says:

    I thought I had.

    Why on earth would you have thought that twice now?

    You didn’t.

    Stop wriggling.

  170. Jarrah says:

    “4000 BCE marriage: 1 man, 1 woman, exclusive”

    LOL

  171. Jarrah says:

    Since you insist, on the basis that two parents are better than one, I’d have to go for (e). But our personal beliefs are irrelevant when discussing what other people should do on this issue, don’t you think?

  172. JamesK says:

    Nearly all ‘debates’ with Jarrah end up being non-debates as he uses inane sophistry.

    As he’s reeled in, he belatedly recognises he’s being reduced to the absurd and laughably attempts to kick for the touch-line.

  173. Jarrah says:

    Aww, I thought you were going to call me stupid. I guess you’re more wary of repeating your pattern now that I’ve pointed it out.

  174. C.L. says:

    Since you insist, on the basis that two parents are better than one… But our personal beliefs are irrelevant when discussing what other people should do on this issue, don’t you think?

    LOL.

    No. Just ask African-American community workers.

    And American tax-payers.

    Or Australian ones, for that matter.

    As it is axiomatic that two heterosexual parents is the incontestably superior child-rearing model – and that many of society’s problems are the result of this model being weakened or disrespected – it follows logically that our personal beliefs are pre-eminetly relevant when discussing what other people should do.

  175. JamesK says:

    Since you insist, on the basis that two parents are better than one, I’d have to go for (e).

    Good !

    So the Jarrah position is that:

    1): a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple – all things being equal are better than a single parent.

    2): all things being equal and in general – a SS couple parenting is no better or worse for the child and society than heterosexual couple parenting.

    It follows that man or woman per se have no gender specific role in parenting only in procreation

    Thanks for being momentarily honest Jarrah

    Obviously we disagree but we finally have clarity.

    By the way, why if a child would be better with 2 parents over 1, why wouldn’t 3 or more ‘parents’ wouldn’t be better again?

    Or would you need more university studies?

  176. Rococo Liberal says:

    Look Gay supporters: will you effing stop trying to change the effing subject and ask the right question.

    And that is: should homosexual partners have equal legal privlleges (NOT rights) to heterosexual married couples?

    If you answer that question in the affirmative, and I think most of us here would do so, then how is the government to legislate to achieve those privleges for homsexual couples?

    Deeming a gay union to be marriage is one way, but it is clumsy and stupid, as it’s like deeming a turkey to be a chicken. And one can see the Gay Taliban using it to force the churches to officiate at their unions.

    The Governemtn can regulate all sorts of relationships if it wants. For example it may be a good thing if ederly un married siblings have some of the rights of maaried people when it comes to inheritance or superannuation payouts.

    What I find offensive about this whole debate is the pig ignorance of the left and the Gay taliban. I am assuming it is intentional and these people are evil twats, because no-one could be really so stupid about identifying the real issues here. Or do they really think that Government and politics are identical to society?

  177. Pedro says:

    JamesK:
    “Oooooh the ‘polygamy argument’.

    I refuse to read your hyperlink to the Independent”

    Denying yourself information is a big step on the road to ignorance. A route you seem to have been eagerly trudging for some time.

    Let’s cut to the chase. You said that marriage is a 6000 year unchanged institution of monogamy and I showed you are flat out wrong. Not reading about it does not change things Mr Head-in-the-Sand.

    The category error was that your argument requires marriage to be a non-state instituion and I showed that it is a state instituion.

    I keep calling you a dill and you keep proving me right. This is just too easy.

  178. Pedro says:

    “Deeming a gay union to be marriage is one way, but it is clumsy and stupid, as it’s like deeming a turkey to be a chicken. And one can see the Gay Taliban using it to force the churches to officiate at their unions”

    Calling gay activists the Gay Taliban makes you a hypocrite if you ever fretted about warmists calling skeptics deniers.

    No, it’s not clumsy or stupid, that’s just a clumsy and stupid assertion. Marriage is just a set of legal bonds between two people set out in the marriage act and upsettable under the family law act.

    People like me will be just a strident in defence of churches that don’t want to wed queers. The great thing about being a private institution is you’re free to be a fuckwit.

  179. JamesK says:

    Denying yourself information

    LOL

  180. Pedro says:

    Still asserting that 6k years of monogamy dopey?

  181. JamesK says:

    I showed you are flat out wrong

    No you didn’t.

    A very short and controversial period in Jewish history approved by no great Jewish theologian or any of the great thinkers in the Western tradition means that we no longer can claim marriage be understood to mean 1 man and 1 woman exclusively as continuous Western cultural tradition of 6000 years?

    You’re sanctimonious clown using an inane argument, Pedro.

  182. Jarrah says:

    “By the way, why if a child would be better with 2 parents over 1, why wouldn’t 3 or more ‘parents’ wouldn’t be better again?”

    It quite possibly would be. You didn’t give me that option in your multiple-choice question, though.

    I’ve got a question for you. If it was found that – all else being equal – three (or more) parents were better than two, would you allow polygamy, group marriage, or line marriage?

    BTW, Pedro is correct – your “1 man and 1 woman exclusively as continuous Western cultural tradition of 6000 year” is self-evidently false. Did you look at the link I posted?

  183. JamesK says:

    It quite possibly would be. You didn’t give me that option in your multiple-choice question, though.

    That sentence is apropos of nothing

  184. JamesK says:

    If it was found that – all else being equal – three (or more) parents were better than two, would you allow polygamy, group marriage, or line marriage?

    No.

    Because I already know that a nuclear family is the optimum pedagogic environment and for society.

    You should know that great thinkers in human history argued against polygamy, never for.

  185. JamesK says:

    BTW, Pedro is correct – your “1 man and 1 woman exclusively as continuous Western cultural tradition of 6000 year” is self-evidently false. Did you look at the link I posted?

    It’s actually not in any meaningful sense false.

    Such an assertion put forward as itself relevant and meaningful says more about you and your ability to think rationally and nothing consequential about my point.

    I don’t know what your link is.

    What is it and why should I follow it?

  186. JamesK says:

    I shit you not: Update on Jarrah’s beliefs:

    3 or more parents may well be better than 2 (whether 2 is m/f, f/f, m/m which are all equivalent).

    presumably 3 could be: m/m/m as in da movie, m/f/m, m/f/f, f/f/f

    We need study to find out.

  187. selen234 says:

    Free to be fuckwit eh???

    Guilt by association….lol!!!

  188. Lorenzo says:

    Thanks for the link. I would point out that saying a given “argument” would operate against a whole range of emancipation struggles is not claiming that all those emancipation struggles were morally equal.

    Also, the “definition of marriage” argument is as silly as other people have suggested, since what has been defined as a marriage has varied widely over time. (Leaving aside various forms of polygamy–Solomon had lots of wives, for example–one of the early Rabbinical texts, the Sifra, denounced pagans for allowing same-sex marriage.)

    The Regnerus study seems to be the latest in a long list of dodgy studies and misused studies. It is turning out to be remarkably difficult to get good social science evidence in support of certain allegedly “obvious” or “axiomatic” claims. The complexity of the human getting in the way again.

    As for problems with criticising conservatives, I will admit that torture, the miseries of mass unemployment and making the same mistakes all over again have attracted my attention, but that has been driven by those specific issues not some general animus against conservatives.

  189. Jarrah says:

    “I don’t know what your link is. What is it and why should I follow it?”

    If you hover your mouse over it, you get the URL. It’s an infographic proving you wrong.

    Your consistent resistance to being shown any evidence that might cause you to think again is hilarious, BTW. You “already know” the answer! LOL

  190. Pedro says:

    It’s pretty silly, you just know that deep (or not so deep) down JimmyK’s argument is simply that the pope is agin it and that’s good enough for him. Once you’ve bashed a bible poofters are fair game I s’pose.

Comments are closed.