Gay marriage in Australia

[Metaphor]

A devout Christian lobbyist living in Canberra has declared that if homosexuals are permitted to marry, he will get a divorce from his wife of ten years. They plan to continue to live together, but not to be legally married.

Quite apart from the sheer narcissistic stupidity of imagining that anyone would give a shit if he got divorced, he is up against a legal problem - under Australian law, you can only get a divorce if you and your spouse have been separated for 12 months, and sign a Statutory Declaration that you have no intention of cohabiting in the future.

So he would need the legal definition of marriage to be changed in order to support his lifestyle choice.

Full story here.

I just felt a disturbance in the force, as if a million irony meters cried out in agony, and then were suddenly silenced.

You beat me to posting this, bilby. I blame homosexuality.

However, I'd bet my apartment deposit that they won't do it, any more than Barbra Streisand left America when Bush was re-elected, or Ann Coulter campaigned for Hillary Clinton after McCain was nominated.

 

[mojorising]

Well do you agree that it is a possibility that it could be natural in the same way that Downs syndrome is natural?

i.e. a recurrent defect

Downs syndrome actually proves my point. Downs Syndrome is also natural. Evolution doesn´t have a goal or a purpose. It´s just a mechanic. Sometimes less helpful varieties of humans are produced. That´s just a fact of life. If nature has seen to it to produce people with Downs Syndrome we should of course adapt the laws to include them, and not create laws to make their lives more difficult unnecessarily. They couldn´t help having Downs Syndrome. So they shouldn´t get punished for it. Same goes for for gays.

I agree completely. I don't think homosexuals should be punished for being homosexual. It is not their fault. It is just unfortunate. I think the law should support them as best as is possible and they should be protected from the persecution they have suffered historically.

I think redefining marriage to humour them is just going a bit far is all since a lot of people regard it as having a culturally valuable context.

I can sympathise with the fellow in Canberra who is repelled by the idea of sharing the historic cultural institution with homosexuals although I would not go as far as to get divorced, although I am not actually married and never have been.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Downs syndrome actually proves my point. Downs Syndrome is also natural. Evolution doesn´t have a goal or a purpose. It´s just a mechanic. Sometimes less helpful varieties of humans are produced. That´s just a fact of life. If nature has seen to it to produce people with Downs Syndrome we should of course adapt the laws to include them, and not create laws to make their lives more difficult unnecessarily. They couldn´t help having Downs Syndrome. So they shouldn´t get punished for it. Same goes for for gays.

I agree completely. I don't think homosexuals should be punished for being homosexual. It is not their fault. It is just unfortunate. I think the law should support them as best as is possible and they should be protected from the persecution they have suffered historically.

I think redefining marriage to humour them is just going a bit far is all since a lot of people regard it as having a culturally valuable context.

So which is it, do you want to punish gays unfairly for something they can´t help or not? You just said that marriage is culturally valuable. Many gays obviously agree. Which is why they want to get married. So why do you want to cling to outdated and homophobic laws that punish them for what they can´t help? Allowing them to get married has zero cost to the rest of society. I can´t see any other motive to prevent them from it than pure malice.

I can sympathise with the fellow in Canberra who is repelled by the idea of sharing the historic cultural institution with homosexuals although I would not go as far as to get divorced, although I am not actually married and never have been.

I´d say it´s analogous to being repelled by the idea of sharing a train coach with black people. As far as I´m concerned he´s free to be as repelled as he gets. But I think it would be wrong to adapt society around peoples irrational phobias. I think it´s a wiser approach to legalise gay marriage and refer this guy to a therapist to help him deal with it on his own. I think it would be wrong to shift responsibility of this over on gays.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You are taking historical examples of cruelty to mature adults who have developed homosexuality and using that to scare people away from even considering the possibilities of early intervention.

Well, yeah.
Your cure is hypothetical.
The history of 'treating' homosexuality, among other 'diseases' is a fact. And an embarrassing one for otherwise-civilized people.
It's not something that needs to be cured and the history of 'curing' it is one of fear, meanness, troubles and more harm than good.

If homosexuality is natural (which, of course, you refuse to consider), then who's to say that your in utero cure won't be creating more problems, just like the other cure attempts? What would ensure that problems don't crop up at puberty or maturity?

You say that science now believes that homosexuality is normal and healthy part of sexual development. I think a lot of the 'science' behind this viewpoint is driven by a political agenda

So, all the voters are liars and all the scientists are liars and you can discern the true truth behind all the lies. 'Scuse my skepticism, here.

Studies showing that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom do not make a distinction between occasional homosexual behaviour (which can be engaged in for various tactical reasons) and lifelong homosexual pair-bonding which is non-existent except in 2 species: 1 being humans of course, and the other being domesticated sheep (a species that has been artificially bred by humans).

IF the studies don't make the distinction, then why in the goddamned fuck should anyone accept your claim that it only exists in two species? How the fuck would you know?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I can sympathise with the fellow in Canberra who is repelled by the idea of sharing the historic cultural institution with homosexuals although I would not go as far as to get divorced, although I am not actually married and never have been.

So, you're okay with HIM redefining marriage to be used as an act of political protest, but not to let gay couples use it as an act of commitment to a loving partner.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You say that science now believes that homosexuality is normal and healthy part of sexual development. I think a lot of the 'science' behind this viewpoint is driven by a political agenda where the desired outcome (equal recognition of homosexuality) is already identified as the only politically acceptable result before the study begins.

From a quick bit of googling, it appears that the opposite may be the truth.

In times before homosexuality was anywhere close to acceptable, any researchers observing animals tended to UNDER-report such behavior. Or they would weight it differently.

Any time a male so much as sniffed at a female, or made a mating display, whether successful or not, would be counted as an instance of heterosexuality. Two males having sex would be classified as a 'dominance' ritual to marginalize or ignore the homosexuality on display.

On the other hand, there appears to have been research on how male black swans will pair bond and steal nests, driving mothers away from their eggs, then raising the chicks. There's ENOUGH of this research to have data on how those chicks have a better survival rate than those of male/female pairs, possibly because the two males have a better chance to defend their territory.

Anyway, whoever told you 'it's only sheep,' may have been understating the reality.

 

[mojorising]

So which is it, do you want to punish gays unfairly for something they can´t help or not?

How is tolerating them and defending their rights to have relationships and protecting them from the sort of abuse and victimisation they have had to put up with historically 'punishing them' ?

They are in a situation they could not have imagined in their wildest dreams even a mere 50 years ago and still they are not happy.

I mean they could look at it as a 'glass is half full' situation with all the support and legal protection they have now.

I don't blame them for wanting to take more it is just human nature. You give a fella 2.54 cm and he wants 1.609 kilometres, I know how it works.

Anyway I have been working down in Canberra for a few weeks and it has been so cold (-7c one night last week) I feel winter oppressing me. I hope this poor Christian fella is not planning a street protest about his marriage as I think he will be on his own.

 

[dystopian]

I agree completely. I don't think homosexuals should be punished for being homosexual. It is not their fault. It is just unfortunate. I think the law should support them as best as is possible and they should be protected from the persecution they have suffered historically.

I think redefining marriage to humour them is just going a bit far is all since a lot of people regard it as having a culturally valuable context.

"I think the law should support them as best as is possible and-- WOAW I DIDN'T ACTUALLY MEAN THAT!"

 

[DrZoidberg]

So which is it, do you want to punish gays unfairly for something they can´t help or not?

How is tolerating them and defending their rights to have relationships and protecting them from the sort of abuse and victimisation they have had to put up with historically 'punishing them' ?

Making some sort of point about them being lesser human beings by arbitrarily withholding institutions, like marriage, is punishing them. If you can´t see this I suggest having your moral compass repaired.

They are in a situation they could not have imagined in their wildest dreams even a mere 50 years ago and still they are not happy.

It´s you like you expect a rape victim to be happy and grateful because their rapist has stopped raping them? They have no reason to be grateful about anything. Rather every reason to be miffed at how they have been treated, and still are badly treated because of their sexuality.

I don´t expect gratitude by a gay person because I´m treating him as I would anybody else.

I mean they could look at it as a 'glass is half full' situation with all the support and legal protection they have now.

That would imply extreme masochism on their part. Yes, they could. But if they had any kind of dignity they wouldn´t. Which they generally don´t.

I don't blame them for wanting to take more it is just human nature. You give a fella 2.54 cm and he wants 1.609 kilometres, I know how it works.

They just want to be treated like everybody else and you chose that to call them greedy for it. I think that says more about you than the gays.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They are in a situation they could not have imagined in their wildest dreams even a mere 50 years ago and still they are not happy.

I mean they could look at it as a 'glass is half full' situation with all the support and legal protection they have now.

I asked a while ago if there's any precedent for that.
Has any group paused in their quest for equality and said, 'that's enough equality for now' or 'we'll call this half-full and shut up about equality?'
Ever?

As far as I can remember, anyone that starts getting treated as a person wants to be fully treated as a person and won't stop until they get that equality.

Why the fuck should gays be any different?

And far more to the point, WHY oh WHY should WE treat the gays any differently?

 

[Jokodo]

So which is it, do you want to punish gays unfairly for something they can´t help or not?

How is tolerating them and defending their rights to have relationships and protecting them from the sort of abuse and victimisation they have had to put up with historically 'punishing them' ?

They are in a situation they could not have imagined in their wildest dreams even a mere 50 years ago and still they are not happy.

I mean they could look at it as a 'glass is half full' situation with all the support and legal protection they have now.<snip>

Slavery was abolished almost a hundred years ago, blacks are in a situation they could not have imagined in their wildest dreams a few generations and still they are not happy.

I mean they could look at it as a "glass is half full" situation with all the support and legal protection they have now.

Instead, they insist on pissing off normal people by demanding equal access to polling stations (don't they understand that the traditional definition of "universal" in "universal franchise" is "for all white men"? Do we really have to change valuable traditional definitions just to accomodate a loud minority?), and some of them even expect to ride on the same busses as I! You can't blame normal folks if they develop racist attitudes when those niggas are so aggressive in wanting always more!

I, on the other hand, am very tolerant. See, I'm even against shooting them on sight! Why do they want more than that?

 

[Rhea]

They are in a situation they could not have imagined in their wildest dreams even a mere 50 years ago and still they are not happy.

I mean they could look at it as a 'glass is half full' situation with all the support and legal protection they have now.

I asked a while ago if there's any precedent for that.
Has any group paused in their quest for equality and said, 'that's enough equality for now' or 'we'll call this half-full and shut up about equality?'
Ever?

As far as I can remember, anyone that starts getting treated as a person wants to be fully treated as a person and won't stop until they get that equality.

Why the fuck should gays be any different?

And far more to the point, WHY oh WHY should WE treat the gays any differently?

Yeah, why weren't those blacks happy with being 3/5th of a person and shut up with a glass-3/5 full attitude? What's WRONG with those ungrateful wretches!


mojo - your desire to "protect" the idea of "marriage" into some hokey definition that never existed is so narcissistic it's just a cartoon at this point. YOU'RE NOT EVEN MARRIED and you want to go around using a law to force people to define a thing that you're not even using to be your way. It makes no sense!

Gay people are people. Real people. With ALL of the same feelings and motivations as other people. What makes us want marriage - even atheists - is that it means far more in society than the weird fundy "reproductive acts" fig leaf. And it always has. Always.

Interestingly, my marriage happened for the sole purpose of reproduction. We got married because we were trying to make babies and we wanted the easy-peasy benefits package that provides for insurance, inheritance and hospital rights. BUT we had no idea if we were fertile at this point in time. We could have been adopters, just like a gay couple. And if we never had kids and did not choose to adopt, we still would have benefited from the inheritance and property rights pieces, because it turns out that it's never just about procreation.

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>What makes us want marriage - even atheists<snip>

Speak for yourself. I dont want marriage - although I'm as good a candidate for it as mojo could hope for.

I might be more inclined to consider it, though, if there were legal same-sex marriage in my jurisdiction. Without it, marrying for the benefits feels a bit like going to a pub with a 'no jews and niggers admitted' copper sign over the door because the beer's 50c cheaper than elsewhere in town.

 

[mojorising]

Has any group paused in their quest for equality and said, 'that's enough equality for now' or 'we'll call this half-full and shut up about equality?'

That is the problem Keith. Homosexuals are human beings and human beings are not looking for 'equality', they are looking for the best possible deal they can squeeze out of the system. If homosexuals can exploit the tidal wave of frothing hysteria around the 'trendy issue for 2015' i.e. 'gay marriage' then they will ride it for every buck its worth. I don't blame them, if I was a homosexual I would too but looking at it objectively they have more than enough to lead happy lives. Their quest for rights to redefine the institution of marriage is just taking the piss out of a system that has lost its sense of objectivity with relation to this issue.

 

[mojorising]

Speak for yourself. I dont want marriage - although I'm as good a candidate for it as mojo could hope for.

You are talking yourself up there Jokodo. But we don't know anything about each other really so I think that is a bold assertion.

Me:-
5'10"
75Kg
Not bald
Not ugly
Goes to the gym (sometimes)

(you are not a man are you?)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Has any group paused in their quest for equality and said, 'that's enough equality for now' or 'we'll call this half-full and shut up about equality?'

That is the problem Keith. Homosexuals are human beings and human beings are not looking for 'equality', they are looking for the best possible deal they can squeeze out of the system. If homosexuals can exploit the tidal wave of frothing hysteria around the 'trendy issue for 2015' i.e. 'gay marriage' then they will ride it for every buck its worth. I don't blame them, if I was a homosexual I would too but looking at it objectively they have more than enough to lead happy lives. Their quest for rights to redefine the institution of marriage is just taking the piss out of a system that has lost its sense of objectivity with relation to this issue.

That´s not the issue. Yes, marriage is largely a symbolic issue. Registered partnership has the same function which they have an access to. The issue is only that society is trying to make homosexuals as a different category of human whos relationships are to be seen as less natural. That is why it´s at all made into an issue.

On my part, this isn´t a gay issue at all. I´m straight. I don´t want to be seen as a person who tries to discriminate minorities. For me it´s a question of civilisation. I want to live in a society that I perceive as being civilised. If we allow gays to be treated differently than straights only based on their sexuality then I would feel ashamed and dirty of being part of that culture. I wouldn´t want to identify with it. To me it´s a slippery slope. If we allow any arbitrary discrimination we leave the door open for further discrimination. So I put my foot down firmly and say "enough is enough".

So to me this isn´t a gay issue at all. It´s a much more fundamental one. It´s one about just common decency and civilisation. Your ickyness degree is a non-factor. I think it´s icky to see horrendously disfigured people on the subway to. I don´t want to stop them from using it because of it. Instead I feel compassion, and applaud them for their bravery of not hiding in shame about it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Has any group paused in their quest for equality and said, 'that's enough equality for now' or 'we'll call this half-full and shut up about equality?'

That is the problem Keith. Homosexuals are human beings and human beings are not looking for 'equality', they are looking for the best possible deal they can squeeze out of the system.

I guess that's a 'no' for precedent?

But that's not the problem HERE, mojo. Even if they're demanding more than equality, that's no justification for you denying them at least equality.
And kind of way, way, way off point in justifying why they should settle for LESS than equality.

If homosexuals can exploit the tidal wave of frothing hysteria around the 'trendy issue for 2015' i.e. 'gay marriage' then they will ride it for every buck its worth. I don't blame them, if I was a homosexual I would too but looking at it objectively they have more than enough to lead happy lives.

First off, I really doubt that you're able to look at it objectively.
Second, it's not the ones seeking equality that are frothing at the mouth.
And third, you're not the one to judge what they would or should be 'happy' with. So your assessment of their half-full glass is meaningless as an argument against giving them equality.

Their quest for rights to redefine the institution of marriage

There's no more redefinition to the institution of marriage than has happened when they allowed any other group of consenting adults to practice it or to have divorces.
This is a completely ludicrous sticking point that only you care about.

is just taking the piss out of a system that has lost its sense of objectivity with relation to this issue.

You consider most people who disagree with you to be liars, and ignore significant amounts of science to hold your 'it's unnatural' position. You're really in no position to measure anyone else's objectivity on the issue.

 

[Jokodo]

Speak for yourself. I dont want marriage - although I'm as good a candidate for it as mojo could hope for.

You are talking yourself up there Jokodo. But we don't know anything about each other really so I think that is a bold assertion.

Me:-
5'10"
75Kg
Not bald
Not ugly
Goes to the gym (sometimes)

(you are not a man are you?)

I don't want to marry you. When I'm saying that I'm the perfect candidate for marriage in your world, I'm saying that I'm living together with a partner of the opposite sex with whom I've successfully reproduced. My physical attributes are irrelevant, unless you want to start denying marriage to men under 175cm and women above 172cm (which would only be consistent - since one of your main arguments to restrict marriage is that women and men are different and therefore complement each other, it would make perfect sense to kick out couples where the man and the woman are insufficiently different).

 

[Jokodo]

Has any group paused in their quest for equality and said, 'that's enough equality for now' or 'we'll call this half-full and shut up about equality?'

That is the problem Keith. Homosexuals are human beings and human beings are not looking for 'equality', they are looking for the best possible deal they can squeeze out of the system. If homosexuals can exploit the tidal wave of frothing hysteria around the 'trendy issue for 2015' i.e. 'gay marriage' then they will ride it for every buck its worth. I don't blame them, if I was a homosexual I would too but looking at it objectively they have more than enough to lead happy lives. Their quest for rights to redefine the institution of marriage is just taking the piss out of a system that has lost its sense of objectivity with relation to this issue.

Women had "more than enough to lead happy lives" before they were allowed to vote, as many a man from the 1910s would happily argue in detail.

If you're withholding a right from a group of individuals while granting it to others and pretending that it's a universal right rather than something you have to earn on indivdual merit, you're discriminating, and it's never enough until you stop.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Nobody is proposing trying to 'cure' homosexuals once they have already grown up and grown into their sexual identity.

What I am saying is that if the genetic cause could be identified early enough (even in utero) then it would be a humane treatment if you accept that avoiding homosexuality is desirable (which I know you don't). Alternatively if behavioural environmental factors during early development could be statistically verified then those factors could be mitigated to avoid homosexual development.

You are imagining these conveniently innocuous solutions which have no basis in reality. Let's put aside imagination for a moment and stick to reality.

You are taking historical examples of cruelty to mature adults who have developed homosexuality and using that to scare people away from even considering the possibilities of early intervention.

I am flat out telling you this is not something we can fuck with on a whim, a hope and a prayer and hope there will be no negative repercussions. I am talking about reality. We currently have no ability to do what you are talking about, and with the evidence we have so far, are unlikely to be able to do that in any of our lifetimes if ever.

You say that science now believes that homosexuality is normal and healthy part of sexual development. I think a lot of the 'science' behind this viewpoint is driven by a political agenda where the desired outcome (equal recognition of homosexuality) is already identified as the only politically acceptable result before the study begins.

No, you don't "think" that. You pulled in out of your ass because you don't want to face reality. I am sure there are some studies with some bias in both directions as science is not immune to human imperfections, but the historical progression was classifying homosexuality as a disorder and a disease, then begrudgingly altering that view as it became apparent over time that it doesn't fit the bill.

It is simply too awful to contemplate that homosexuality may be simply a recurring aberration which the human race could avoid.

Not at all. When you remove the moralized definitions of 'aberrant' the term may loosely fit, and if no people were LGBT, it wouldn't matter to me. But that isn't reality, and your 'could' is entirely baseless.