Gay marriage in Australia

[mojorising]

iii) It's not political for the people seeking the right to same-sex marriage. It's their life. It's their partner's life. For you it's political, but for them it's their future.

But we are not denying them the right to legal structures that will support their desire to have legally recognised partnerships with substantially the same rights as marriages.

We can create a new tradition and legal definition of 'partnership' to cover this.

It can be legally defined to have the same rights as 'marriage' (with some exceptions relating to adoption of children) so that any legislation referring to marriage also refers to the new structure (except where it does not).

Keeping the definitions separate allows us to control this new legals structure's rights to things like adoption.

I don't see why this is not enough for them. It seems that wanting a redefinition of 'marriage' is not simply about getting access to a few established legal precepts but is about eliminating the idea that there is any difference between gay partnerships and heterosexual marriages (like feminists trying to eliminate the notion of differences between the sexes in the 1970s) which is nonsense.

There are many similarities but there are also many differences.

 

[Archimedes]

Wow, this thread is just spiraling into every clichéd anti-gay argument possible, isn't it? The only thing I think we're missing is that it's anti-God to round it off as a big nice fat bag of every argument we've been hearing for the past 20 years or more.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I don't see why this is not enough for them. It seems that wanting a redefinition of 'marriage' is not simply about getting access to a few established legal precepts but is about eliminating the idea that there is any difference between gay partnerships and heterosexual marriages which is nonsense.

Every marriage is different, but a gay marriage is not any more different than the multitudinous versions of marriage which legally exist now. There is already a term in English which describes the type of union which many gay people seek; it's marriage. There are not "many" differences. There is a single difference and all other facets are the same. The preexisting legal definition of marriage in no way needs to be reconfigured; it simply needs one very minor expansion in application to remove the sort of bigotry which is not justifiable in a rational and egalitarian society which values liberty.

Keeping the definitions separate allows us to control this new legals structure's rights to things like adoption.

There is no reason to do that. If anything, you're making an argument in favour of using the term 'marriage' over anything else.

 

[bilby]

iii) It's not political for the people seeking the right to same-sex marriage. It's their life. It's their partner's life. For you it's political, but for them it's their future.

But we are not denying them the right to legal structures that will support their desire to have legally recognised partnerships with substantially the same rights as marriages.

'Substantially the same' or 'the same'? If not 'the same', then you are denying them something; if 'the same' then where's the beef?

We can create a new tradition and legal definition of 'partnership' to cover this.

Or save time money and effort by simply using the one we already have.

It can be legally defined to have the same rights as 'marriage' (with some exceptions relating to adoption of children)

Hang on; That's not 'substantially the same'. In fact, as adoption law currently doesn't preclude adoption by homosexuals, or by the un-married, you are actually campaigning here for fewer rights for homosexuals than they currently have...

so that any legislation referring to marriage also refers to the new structure (except where it does not).

So by 'substantially the same' you mean 'totally different'?

Keeping the definitions separate allows us to control this new legals structure's rights to things like adoption.

Why would we want to do that?

I don't see why this is not enough for them. It seems that wanting a redefinition of 'marriage' is not simply about getting access to a few established legal precepts but is about eliminating the idea that there is any difference between gay partnerships and heterosexual marriages (like feminists trying to eliminate the notion of differences between the sexes in the 1970s) which is nonsense.

There are many similarities but there are also many differences.

Then you won't have any trouble listing some of the differences, along with the reasons why they are important.

Bearing in mind that they have to be actual differences - things that apply to ALL homosexual marriages (should they be permitted), that apply to NO heterosexual marriages.

So for example "Homosexuals cannot naturally conceive children" is not a difference - My second wife and I couldn't naturally conceive children; but we were lawfully married in Australia. (Perhaps you noticed your marriage being devalued by this? Did you come home from work one day and say to your wife "I am afraid our relationship is less valuable today, because some guy in Brisbane who i never heard of and still know nothing about married a woman who couldn't naturally conceive a child"? Or perhaps this had no affect on you whatsoever?)

 

[mojorising]

There are not "many" differences. There is a single difference and all other facets are the same.

This sounds like the kind of brain-washed Newspeak that was described in Orwell's 1984.

Saying there are no differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual partnership is just obtuse.

Men and women are not the same. Therefore a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual partnership are not the same either.

One can make genetic progeny (unassisted) and the other cannot.

One involves the genetic binding together of two families in an ancient time-honoured tradition and the other does not.

One involves the ceremonial recognition of the evolutionarily correct manifestation (as I see it) of the human pair-bonding instinct.

The other involves the ceremonial recognition of pair-bonding between 2 fellas which is a behaviour that is likely to be shown (I believe once science has made the necessary advances) to be a result of incorrectly developed (I believe) sexual circuitry in the human brain and almost a parody of real marriage.

 

[mojorising]

Wow, this thread is just spiraling into every clichéd anti-gay argument possible, isn't it? The only thing I think we're missing is that it's anti-God to round it off as a big nice fat bag of every argument we've been hearing for the past 20 years or more.

The irony is that I would be very much in favour of support and protection for homosexuals in their pursuit of life happiness and the safety to have legal relationships and not be unduly discriminated against if they would back off this excessive presumption in hijacking and redefining the cultural tradition of marriage in an attempt to brainwash the population into not seeing any difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality when there is an obvious difference.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As I said earlier, different societies had different names for different sorts of relationships involving sex. Some of those relationships have some legal status. Others did not.
So, I have two questions in this context:

1. What is your evidence that there was a single concept across different societies and languages that corresponds to the concept of marriage that the English word "marriage" denoted in Australia when the laws were drafted?
2. What is your evidence that the word "marriage" used in English today (in Australia) means the same as the word "marriage" used in English in Australia when the laws were drafted?

I don't see the relevance of the questions. You are trying to wriggle out of a common sense definition of marriage on technicalities, which does not achieve anything from the point of view of advancing a sensible discussion.

No, that is not at all what I'm doing. What I'm doing is asking for evidence of claims or implications you made. That you don't see the relevance of the questions does not make them not relevant. They are relevant because you made those claims and implications, and based arguments on them. I will try again below. But I'm trying to have a sensible discussion. I'm sensibly pointing out that one of the claims on which you base some of your arguments keeps failing to be supported, and in fact the negation of the claim in question has a lot of support, which is clearly relevant and sensible, but what I get is a denial of the relevance of the point.

OK so do you think the male-female pair-bonding behaviour exhibited by humans is just a social construct or do you think we are evolved to pair bond?

That evades relevant questions, and would unduly shift the burden.

I'm not a biologist, or an expert in human evolution. As a lay person, I generally accept the findings of science on the matter, unless I have specific reasons to doubt them. As far as I can tell, humans bond in many different ways, as a direct result of adaptations. Pair bonding is not the same as marriage in the sense you call traditional. It may or may not be sexual. It may or may not be heterosexual if it's sexual. And it may not be for life.

But again, that is not the point. You're making a number of claims and arguments. So, if you have links to serious research supporting a claim that you have made, could you please:
a. Post the relevant links.
b. Explain what claim of yours they support.

I think we are evolved to pair-bond. We also have 'culture' and 'traditions' with ceremonies since we are human.

It stands to reason, then, that if male-female pair-bonding is an inherent feature of being human that almost all cultures will observe a ceremony for the pair-bonding of a couple. Observation of almost all human cultures suggests that is true as we would expect. In English it is called marriage.

Now you jumped from "pair bond" to male-female pair bonding.

But that aside, you claim that those are ceremonies for the pair bonding of a (male-female) couple. But the fact that there are ceremonies that coincide with some cases of male-female pair bonding does not entail that the ceremonies have the purpose (and ceremonies do have purposes) for the pair bonding of a couple, since:

a. Many pair bondings of heterosexual couples are not linked to any sort of ceremony.
b. The ceremonies that do happen often do not involved any previously existing couple, and what happens is that a woman is forced to go with a man someone else chose for her.

The claim that in English it is called marriage does not seem to be true, either, because:

c. In English, some same-sex unions are (for example) called "marriage" as well, and many cases of pair-bonding are not called "marriage".
d. Even leaving aside same-sex unions, there are plenty of cases of male-female pair bonding that are not called "marriage" in English, and plenty of cases in which there is marriage, but not pair bonding.

Let me present some examples: In England and Wales, prior to 1937, divorce was severely restricted. But that does not mean that married people always stayed together. Let's say a married man and a woman broke up, and went on to form other straight pair bonds. The latter bonds might be a lot stronger than the first one, but they were not called a marriage.
In fact, even if the first one did not involve any actual pair bonding in the psychological sense, it was still called a marriage.

This is not only what used to happen. Even today, let's say that a straight couple get married in England, but a year later she wants to end the marriage. He refuses. The pair bond is over, but the marriage isn't. And if she forms a new bond with another man, her new relation is not called "marriage", whereas the old one is - even if no more pair bonding exists. In the US, in the past, there was no no-fault divorce, and even until recently, there were places in which a person couldn't get a divorce without the consent of the other person, etc.

In addition to all of that, men and women pair bond in plenty of cases without ever getting married.

If you think I'm talking of irrelevant technicalities, you are missing the point. The point is that even if it is the case that there some evolved male-female pair bonding in whatever sense you believe there is, the fact of the matter is that the English word "marriage" does not refer to the pair bonding in question; that is, "X is a marriage", and "X is a pair bonding between male and female that humans do as a result of some adaptation" do not have the same referent; in fact, they never have had the same referent in any English-speaking country - not even when the word "marriage" was never applied to any same-sex relationship. So, an objection to the application of the word "marriage" in the case of same-sex couples on the basis of the alleged fact that "marriage" refers to the pair bonding between male and female that humans do as a result of some adaptation, is based on a false claim.

It is really male homosexual couples being given children that I object to. Women are evolved as natural child-carers so they will provide a more natural environment. Men are also much more likely to sexually abuse a child than a woman. (I am not saying gay men in particular, although I understand that there is actually evidence to support this argument too).

I'll get to the male issue later, but let me ask you about your take on the woman/woman case, since it's unclear.
You do oppose calling any of their relationships "marriage" (the reasons do not stand up to scrutiny, though (see above for some points about the meaning of the word "marriage")). Do you also oppose adoption of children by the woman who is not the biological mother? If so, why?

I think homosexual men should not be allowed to adopt children until we understand better what causes homosexuality and also based on the higher risk of sexual abuse from males than females.

Also, why would the causes be important? What matters is the effects on behavior, it seems. But let's leave that aside. Here, my question is:

3. Do you also support banning heterosexual men from adopting children?
After all, based on statistics, men are surely more likely to abuse children than females, sexually or otherwise.
If not, why d<m is that gay men are more likely to sexually abuse children than straight men, you would have to provide evidence of that claim. Moreover, even if such a claim were true, that would not be enough, for the following reason: let's say that the probability of sexual abuse of children by women is (statistically speaking) PW, by straight men is PSM, and by gay men, PGM.
Further, suppose you can establish (but you haven't) that PSM < PGM.
Even then, the fact would be that PW < PSM.
So, we get PW < PSM < PGM.

Based on that, why would the increase in risk justify banning gay men from adopting children, but the increase in risk (from women to straight men) would not justify banning straight men from adopting children?

 

[bilby]

Wow, this thread is just spiraling into every clichéd anti-gay argument possible, isn't it? The only thing I think we're missing is that it's anti-God to round it off as a big nice fat bag of every argument we've been hearing for the past 20 years or more.

The irony is that I would be very much in favour of support and protection for homosexuals in their pursuit of life happiness and the safety to have legal relationships and not be unduly discriminated against if they would back off this excessive presumption in hijacking and redefining the cultural tradition of marriage in an attempt to brainwash the population into not seeing any difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality when there is an obvious difference.

The only obvious difference is that they have a different idea of what is sexually attractive than do heterosexuals.

Given that heterosexuals are not homogeneous in their ideas of what is sexually attractive, this is not a huge or important difference.

Or are you going to campaign for the definition of marriage to exclude men who are turned on by tall women; or women who like bald men?

 

[Sajara]

Wow, this thread is just spiraling into every clichéd anti-gay argument possible, isn't it? The only thing I think we're missing is that it's anti-God to round it off as a big nice fat bag of every argument we've been hearing for the past 20 years or more.

The irony is that I would be very much in favour of support and protection for homosexuals in their pursuit of life happiness and the safety to have legal relationships and not be unduly discriminated against if they would back off this excessive presumption in hijacking and redefining the cultural tradition of marriage in an attempt to brainwash the population into not seeing any difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality when there is an obvious difference.

Unless they want to have kids...then you're gun-ho for discriminating against them? At least have the decency and back-bone to state your beliefs accurately.

 

[dystopian]

My argument is that the WHY makes sense.

And so does the why of homosexuality; despite your childish dismissal of it on account of it not fitting your small, hateful, archaic worldview.

Do we understand the HOW? I am not sure, I have not researched that.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[mojorising]

And so does the why of homosexuality; despite your childish dismissal of it on account of it not fitting your small, hateful, archaic worldview.

I don't think they are equally well supported.

The WHY of heterosexuality has a fairly obvious rationale. Maybe even the most direct rationale possible for a selectable trait.

The candidate WHYs of homosexuality are all quite tenuous.

The idea that homosexuality is just a recurring fault seems equally possible to the various theoretical rationales for why homosexuality could be a selected trait.

 

[Jokodo]

Wow, this thread is just spiraling into every clichéd anti-gay argument possible, isn't it? The only thing I think we're missing is that it's anti-God to round it off as a big nice fat bag of every argument we've been hearing for the past 20 years or more.

The irony is that I would be very much in favour of support and protection for homosexuals in their pursuit of life happiness and the safety to have legal relationships and not be unduly discriminated against if they would back off this excessive presumption in hijacking and redefining the cultural tradition of marriage in an attempt to brainwash the population into not seeing any difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality when there is an obvious difference.

You're the one who just said, in only slightly different words, that we need to have a different word so we can more easily discriminate against homosexual couples. If you really believe that you're tolerant, you're lying to yourself big time.

 

[Jokodo]

There are not "many" differences. There is a single difference and all other facets are the same.

This sounds like the kind of brain-washed Newspeak that was described in Orwell's 1984.

Saying there are no differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual partnership is just obtuse.

Men and women are not the same. Therefore a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual partnership are not the same either.

One can make genetic progeny (unassisted) and the other cannot.

One involves the genetic binding together of two families in an ancient time-honoured tradition and the other does not.

One involves the ceremonial recognition of the evolutionarily correct manifestation (as I see it) of the human pair-bonding instinct.

The other involves the ceremonial recognition of pair-bonding between 2 fellas which is a behaviour that is likely to be shown (I believe once science has made the necessary advances) to be a result of incorrectly developed (I believe) sexual circuitry in the human brain and almost a parody of real marriage.

Did you just write "evolutionarily correct"?

evolutionarily correct?
evolutionarily correct?
evolutionarily correct?


How about we ground all airplanes because only trains are gravitationally correct?

 

[mojorising]

Did you just write "evolutionarily correct"?

I think you know what I mean.

There is a clear rationale for why heterosexuality resulted from an evolutionary process.

There is only a tenuous rationale for why homosexuality could have resulted from an evolutionary process.

The alternative explanation being that it is just a recurrent aberration/non-useful mutation like Downs.

If you don't like the use of the word 'correct' in this circumstance I could say evolutionarily 'derived' or evolutionarily 'generated'?

 

[Jokodo]

Did you just write "evolutionarily correct"?

I think you know what I mean.

There is a clear rationale for why heterosexuality resulted from an evolutionary process.

There's also a clear rationale for why most water on earth is assembled in the oceans from the theory of gravity. That doesn't make mountain lakes incorrect and immoral.

The argument "evolution, therefore let's not support gay marriage" makes exactly as much sense as the argument "gravity, therefore let's drain mountain lakes".

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is a clear rationale for why heterosexuality resulted from an evolutionary process.

'Clear,' to you, but you haven't actually shown any research that suports the conclusions you draw.

There is only a tenuous rationale for why homosexuality could have resulted from an evolutionary process.

...nor have you shown this to be true.
And more to the point, you haven't given any real reason why this should matter a shit in discrimination.

The alternative explanation being that it is just a recurrent aberration/non-useful mutation like Downs.

That's not 'the' alternative explanation.
You're ignoring quite a bit of this thread.
And you're about as tolerant as an alligator with a toothache.

If you don't like the use of the word 'correct' in this circumstance I could say evolutionarily 'derived' or evolutionarily 'generated'?

You can use any sciencey word you like, mojo.
As long as you follow up with actual science....

...we're all waiting....

 

[Keith&Co.]

But we are not denying them the right to legal structures that will support their desire to have legally recognised partnerships with substantially the same rights as marriages.

But you WOULD deny them marriage. Because them being married somehow taints a word that has traditionally identified slavery, kidnapping, coercion, diplomatic exchanges and sacrifices.
You put the word on a pillar it doesn't deserve, just to deny people rights they should enjoy.

I don't see why this is not enough for them.

Because it's very clearly discrimination. If you can't see why it's not enough then you're purposefully not looking.

 

[Sajara]

Are you, or have you ever been married mojo?

I realize this is a personal question, so feel free not to answer it.

Would you be okay if the situation was reversed? Would you be okay if homosexuals were in the majority and were arguing that you should not be allowed to marry and have kids because....well, as near as I can tell your argument is 'ickiness'.

I also like how you say that you've never looked into the research on homosexuality's genetic factors and yet you just /know/ it isn't as correct. Gee...that's odd.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The irony is that I would be very much in favour of support and protection for homosexuals in their pursuit of life happiness and the safety to have legal relationships and not be unduly discriminated against if they would back off this excessive presumption in hijacking and redefining the cultural tradition of marriage in an attempt to brainwash the population into not seeing any difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality when there is an obvious difference.

It's not irony, it's strategy.

You clearly want to discriminate against homosexuals having/adopting kids, so you want their partnerships to be separate and distinct from marriage.

Your main goal is not protecting 'the traditional view of marriage' from redefinition, you're trying to save the tradition, which includes raising kids, but withhold THAT part of the tradition from icky gays.

It's not going to work, Mojorising. Gays have been raising kids since forever. Even if you ban their use of formal adoption or the use of fertility clinics, they're going to be motivated to seek out some way to raise kids, just like so many straights are motivated to do. It's a common biological desire. So they will (as they have) use any avenue that's available to them to gain children.
Just like straight couples do, if they can't afford or are barred from other processes.

Gays will form partnerships and raise children and the children will have LESS protection because the partnership either isn't recognized at all, or the parenthood portion isn't.

 

[Sajara]

The irony is that I would be very much in favour of support and protection for homosexuals in their pursuit of life happiness and the safety to have legal relationships and not be unduly discriminated against if they would back off this excessive presumption in hijacking and redefining the cultural tradition of marriage in an attempt to brainwash the population into not seeing any difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality when there is an obvious difference.

And it isn't just homosexuals looking to 'hijack' the word. Plenty of heterosexuals want to live in a world where equality isn't just a lip-service but an actuality. I wouldn't say we've been brainwashed, we're just decent human beings.