Gay marriage in Australia

[mojorising]

But to the rest of us, the sane portion of society, are ok with that it´s up to each and every one who gets married to decide what it means to get married.

What a bunch of cobblers.

So marriage is an entirely subjective proposition is it? It is up to each individual to decide what it means to them on their own terms and each subjective definition is equally valid.

Sounds like school-teacher from the Beavis and Butthead movie who sang about lesbian seagulls.

'mmm'kay'!!

 

[Jokodo]

But to the rest of us, the sane portion of society, are ok with that it´s up to each and every one who gets married to decide what it means to get married.

What a bunch of cobblers.

So marriage is an entirely subjective proposition is it? It is up to each individual to decide what it means to them on their own terms and each subjective definition is equally valid.

Sounds like school-teacher from the Beavis and Butthead movie who sang about lesbian seagulls.

'mmm'kay'!!

Well it's certainly not up to you to decide what it means for the rest of the population. You may believe that you're the centre of the universe and every person and every thing should arrange itself by your whim, but you haven't given the rest of us any reason to agree.

That's a serious case of hubris you get there.

 

[Sajara]

But to the rest of us, the sane portion of society, are ok with that it´s up to each and every one who gets married to decide what it means to get married.

What a bunch of cobblers.

So marriage is an entirely subjective proposition is it? It is up to each individual to decide what it means to them on their own terms and each subjective definition is equally valid.

Sounds like school-teacher from the Beavis and Butthead movie who sang about lesbian seagulls.

'mmm'kay'!!

Except the real world doesn't look like what you think it looks like...again.

50% of marriages end in divorce. The individual couples get to say what their marriage looks like, or doesn't. I know people who got divorced because of cheating, but I know of others who stayed together. There are swingers who are in open marriages. There are people who only stay together for the kids, for tax purposes, for their pets, for their jobs (politicians), etc. Marriage is not a one-size-fits-all definition.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But to the rest of us, the sane portion of society, are ok with that it´s up to each and every one who gets married to decide what it means to get married.

What a bunch of cobblers.

So marriage is an entirely subjective proposition is it? It is up to each individual to decide what it means to them on their own terms and each subjective definition is equally valid.

Sounds like school-teacher from the Beavis and Butthead movie who sang about lesbian seagulls.

'mmm'kay'!!

Not entirely. It has to involve two or more people having a wish to join their households legally and financially. Whether we wish to acknowldge it or not, in the modern world marriage isn´t so much about their time together as a legal method by which we financially protect the person or persons who are financially the weakest during and after a divorce. It´s the divorce that counts, and is the real reason it still exists as an institution at all.

So yeah... there are limits to what marriage means. But beyond the above it is entirely subjective. And most people don´t marry for the above reason. They marry because they love each other and marriage is a ritualistic symbol of it. A way to show each other and the world how much they care about each other. To most people it is the strongest symbol of it.

It is for this second reason why it is cruel to deny gays the right to marry. It is implying that their love isn´t as genuine, natural or valid as straight love. And that is just cruel. It is also unnecessarily cruel.

edit: I don´t know if it´s been mentioned yet, but throughout history marriage has typically been polygamous. It´s extraordinarily rare to find marriage laws that are defined as the merging of one man and one woman. I think it´s exclusively a Christian practice. I don´t know of any other culture that endorses it. Do you? So no matter how you wish to spin it, our monogamous ideal of marriage is by no means normal.

 

[mojorising]

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!"

All I am advocating is a voice for the middle ground, the silent majority.

What we have now is a polarised situation where you either love homosexuals unconditionally or you are a regressive and repellent homophobe.

Why can't we accept that humans are humans with natural repulsions to things like homosexuality. We are being more than reasonable in allowing them substantial rights and freedoms where before they had none.

Trying to impose some kind of moral absolutism on society where every single thing has to be arranged perfectly so that homosexuality is 100% equal with heterosexuality just doesn't take into account natural human feelings.

Homosexuality is fundamentally odd and it is just not possible for society to pretend that homosexuality is entirely normal when our instincts tell us otherwise. Homosexuals have a pretty good deal with the current state of things so they should just settle down and get on with life and let heterosexuals keep their cultural heritage intact.

 

[Keith&Co.]

All I am advocating is a voice for the middle ground, the silent majority.

Cherishing discrimination is not the middle ground, mojo.

What we have now is a polarised situation where you either love homosexuals unconditionally or you are a regressive and repellent homophobe.

No one's asking you to love them.
Just not to legislate your hatred.

Why can't we accept that humans are humans with natural repulsions to things like homosexuality.

Because you haven't SHOWN any natural repulsion to homsexuality. More and more of the research shows that it's homosexuality that's natural.

 

[DrZoidberg]

All I am advocating is a voice for the middle ground, the silent majority.

ha ha. The middle ground between a lunatic fringe and normal people is not to outlaw gay marriage. Also "silent majority" MUAHAHAHAHAHA. They are a tiny tiny minority and EXTREMELY NOISY.

What we have now is a polarised situation where you either love homosexuals unconditionally or you are a regressive and repellent homophobe.

Yes. But the polarised situation is between the people who have no opinion about gays, and think we shouldn´t unnecessarily hassle with anybody´s right to personal freedom and expression. And on the other hand repellent fascistoid homophobes who seem to hate freedom.

Why can't we accept that humans are humans with natural repulsions to things like homosexuality. We are being more than reasonable in allowing them substantial rights and freedoms where before they had none.

Even if true (which I think we´ve established that it isn´t) that´s hardly a reason to hassle the gays. How about you getting therapy for your homophobia? It´s an irrational fear. The key word here is "irrational".

Trying to impose some kind of moral absolutism on society where every single thing has to be arranged perfectly so that homosexuality is 100% equal with heterosexuality just doesn't take into account natural human feelings.

No. That´s not what this is about. This is about each and every one of us getting the freedom to decide for themselves what life they want to live, and your bizarre need to stick your nose where it doesn´t belong. I´m fine with you defining marriage any way you wish. I don´t care. I have the exact same attitude toward gays and their wish to define it however they want to.

Homosexuality is fundamentally odd and it is just not possible for society to pretend that homosexuality is entirely normal when our instincts tell us otherwise. Homosexuals have a pretty good deal with the current state of things so they should just settle down and get on with life and let heterosexuals keep their cultural heritage intact.

Belief in God is also fundamentally odd. But I´not going to prevent Christians from getting married because of it. I tolerate Christians and their bizarre beliefs in invisible magical forces because I want to live in a society where people are free to think whatever. I think it is important and valuable. In spite of holding absurd beliefs, Christians are even allowed to hold positions of power. Which I think is very generous considering how these beliefs sometimes (well... quite often actually) come across as paranoid schizophrenia. But you may have a point. We may... for the sake of safety... make it illegal for theists to hold any kind of management position. I mean... who knows what fantasy creatures they might think of next. They do claim that they hear voices in their heads that they act on.

 

[Sajara]

Why can't we accept that humans are humans with natural repulsions to things like homosexuality. We are being more than reasonable in allowing them substantial rights and freedoms where before they had none.

Oh, we have no doubt that you and a few others have repulsions towards homosexuals (and really it is only the icky male homosexuals for you), but we disagree when you say that you are being reasonable in denying them rights and freedoms because of this repulsion.

You have not shown a reason why this repulsion should be written into a law. Again, I am repulsed by your repulsion. Why does your opinion matter more than mine? I don't expect you to repeat yourself here by the way.

 

[mojorising]

No one's asking you to love them.
Just not to legislate your hatred.

This a classic example of the polarising of the issue by the pro-homosexual-marriage crew. Just because I am not that keen on homosexuals does not mean I am filled with hatred.

Even if true (which I think we´ve established that it isn´t) that´s hardly a reason to hassle the gays.

We are not hassling them. We have helped them immeasurably overvthe last 50 year with society's new found tolerance and some gratitude would not go amiss. Which could be, for example, by backing off a bit and settling down when it comes to hijacking heterosexual traditions.

It´s an irrational fear. The key word here is "irrational".

I don't think it is rational or irrational. I think it is just natural distaste.

No. That´s not what this is about. This is about each and every one of us getting the freedom to decide for themselves what life they want to live, and your bizarre need to stick your nose where it doesn´t belong. I´m fine with you defining marriage any way you wish. I don´t care. I have the exact same attitude toward gays and their wish to define it however they want to.

That is ridiculous. Marriage is a cultural institution shared by society. If it can be defined any way anybody wants to suit them at any time then it doesn't mean anything.

Should a fella be allowed to marry his dog? Maybe he really really loves the dog and we are imposing our cultural beliefs on him by saying that he can't. Who are we to stop a fella from marrying his dog?

 

[Sajara]

That is ridiculous. Marriage is a cultural institution shared by society. If it can be defined any way anybody wants to suit them at any time then it doesn't mean anything.

Hey, now you've got it. The only meaning marriage has is whatever the legal books say it means, and those books have changed it so many times over the years that it is truly meaningless.

 

[mojorising]

That is ridiculous. Marriage is a cultural institution shared by society. If it can be defined any way anybody wants to suit them at any time then it doesn't mean anything.

Hey, now you've got it. The only meaning marriage has is whatever the legal books say it means, and those books have changed it so many times over the years that it is truly meaningless.

So should a man be allowed to marry his dog if he really sincerely loves the dog and feels emotionally bound to the creature in a way that he has never felt about any other living thing?

Can you give me a reasoned explanation of why he should not be allowed to?

Or would we be imposing traditional values on him and impinging upon his right to express his love in the most sincere way he sees possible?

 

[Sajara]

Hey, now you've got it. The only meaning marriage has is whatever the legal books say it means, and those books have changed it so many times over the years that it is truly meaningless.

So should a man be allowed to marry his dog if he really sincerely loves the dog and feels emotionally bound to the creature in a way that he has never felt about any other living thing?

Can you give me a reasoned explanation of why he should not be allowed to?

Or would we be imposing traditional values on him and impinging upon his right to express his love in the most sincere way he sees possible?

Come now mojo. Is that really what you are resorting to now? What next, you going to bring up marrying a baby?

Two consenting adults mojo. A dog can't consent.

 

[mojorising]

I didn't say have sex with the dog. I said marry the dog. What is the reason why a man should be denied the most sincere expression of love for a creature that he loves in an emotional way and in a way he has never felt before?

 

[dystopian]

That is ridiculous. Marriage is a cultural institution shared by society. If it can be defined any way anybody wants to suit them at any time then it doesn't mean anything.

You say that marriage is defined by society. But when society decides to redefine it you suddenly have a problem with it.

 

[bilby]

 

[Keith&Co.]

This a classic example of the polarising of the issue by the pro-homosexual-marriage crew. Just because I am not that keen on homosexuals does not mean I am filled with hatred.

Well, that's certainly what it looks like. You're giving your personal view of a word's definition more legal authority than you'll give them. And you use some pretty negative terms to describe then and their traits.

We are not hassling them. We have helped them immeasurably overvthe last 50 year with society's new found tolerance and some gratitude would not go amiss.

Gratitude for NOT being accepted as equals? But that's not hate. Got it.

Which could be, for example, by backing off a bit and settling down when it comes to hijacking heterosexual traditions.

Hijacking would be one of those terms that make you look hateful. They don't want to take anything away from heterosexuals. They want to share it.

That is ridiculous. Marriage is a cultural institution shared by society.

Which has included traditions of slavery and kidnapping and purchasing brides without their consent by contracting with her parents.
This is a ridiculous thing, pretending that it's only ever meant one thing and that one thing needs or even deserves to be protected.

If it can be defined any way anybody wants to suit them at any time then it doesn't mean anything.

Dictionary uber alles!!!

Should a fella be allowed to marry his dog?

When dogs have the right to consent in legal contracts, sure. Other than that, probably not.

Maybe he really really loves the dog and we are imposing our cultural beliefs on him by saying that he can't. Who are we to stop a fella from marrying his dog?

You DO know that the slippery slope argument is a bunch of bullshit, right?

During the effort to legalize interracial marriage, some people proclaimed that if we did do that, next thing you knew, we'd be letting gays marry.

I do note that no one's NOT opposing gay marriage because, 'Yeah, well, they let blacks marry whites, so I guess we have no leg to stand on.' It didn't make it easier, or likelier, or inevitable.

So, yet another bullshit objection, swing and a miss.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say have sex with the dog. I said marry the dog. What is the reason why a man should be denied the most sincere expression of love for a creature that he loves in an emotional way and in a way he has never felt before?

Because it's a legal contract and dogs can't enter into it.
That's exactly WHY he cannot.

 

[dystopian]

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

All I am advocating is a voice for the middle ground, the silent majority.

You're missing my point. You were the one who claimed that the law should support them as best as possible. Well guess what? Denying them marriage equality is NOT compatible with that claim. You can't say you believe the law should support them as best as possible and then refuse to let the law do exactly that. No matter what your justification for the latter.

You're also NOT advocating for a voice for the silent majority; because the data shows that silent majority is in *favor* of marriage equality.

What we have now is a polarised situation where you either love homosexuals unconditionally or you are a regressive and repellent homophobe.

No, there's no polarized situation. A polarized situation implies there's two poles roughly equivalent in size. They're not. What you have is a majority supporting marriage equality, and a small minority of people who feel entitled to rights others "shouldn't" have and who act like whiny little bitches when they get criticized even though they're constantly doing the same thing to others.

Why can't we accept that humans are humans with natural repulsions to things like homosexuality.

Probably because the only groups of people in the world that seem to actually have that "natural repulsion" are ignorant and uneducated people that just haven't had cause to seriously consider the issue because they haven't been exposed to it... or ignorant religious fanatics/prejudiced bigots. Both groups being in the minority in the developed, civilized world. Most people in the developed world do not share this sense of "repulsion" you have. And if they do, they certainly don't feel compelled to act on it.

Why can't *you* just accept that the repulsion you feel is an aberration born from ignorance and prejudice?

We are being more than reasonable in allowing them substantial rights and freedoms where before they had none.

"More than reasonable"?

Fuck off.

Is a slave-owner being "more than reasonable" if he gives his slaves two meals a day instead of one? It's more than they had before! Why do they keep complaining, ungrateful bastards!

The only *reasonable* treatment of any group of people is full equality in treatment. Anything less is not reasonable. Period.

Trying to impose some kind of moral absolutism on society where every single thing has to be arranged perfectly so that homosexuality is 100% equal with heterosexuality just doesn't take into account natural human feelings.

You mean like the entirely natural feeling that you should be repeatedly punched in the face until you apologize for the shit you've said and start treating people like proper equals?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Even if true (which I think we´ve established that it isn´t) that´s hardly a reason to hassle the gays.

We are not hassling them. We have helped them immeasurably overvthe last 50 year with society's new found tolerance and some gratitude would not go amiss. Which could be, for example, by backing off a bit and settling down when it comes to hijacking heterosexual traditions.

The only reason it´s even remotely seen as an exclusively heterosexual tradition is because they´ve been barred from it before. If marriage laws would have been modernised earlier we wouldn´t be having this conversation. Then traditional marriage would include gays.

Also, to stop unnecessarily persecuting a group of people isn´t to help them. It´s to stop being a cunt. There´s a difference. We´re still not helping gays in society. Here in Sweden, where gay marriage has been legal since 1991, gays have no greater rights than straights. None. So I can´t really see what they have to be grateful about?

It´s an irrational fear. The key word here is "irrational".

I don't think it is rational or irrational. I think it is just natural distaste.

I don´t think that means what you think it means.

No. That´s not what this is about. This is about each and every one of us getting the freedom to decide for themselves what life they want to live, and your bizarre need to stick your nose where it doesn´t belong. I´m fine with you defining marriage any way you wish. I don´t care. I have the exact same attitude toward gays and their wish to define it however they want to.

That is ridiculous. Marriage is a cultural institution shared by society. If it can be defined any way anybody wants to suit them at any time then it doesn't mean anything.

Really? Are you sure that the fact that Somalis are legally able to marry their pets has resulted in marriage being meaningless for everybody else? No? They´ve been able to do it since forever. Gays are about 3% of the population. I somehow doubt all of them are going to get married. That tiny tiny minority getting married is not going to have any impact what so ever on how straight people view marriage.

Should a fella be allowed to marry his dog? Maybe he really really loves the dog and we are imposing our cultural beliefs on him by saying that he can't. Who are we to stop a fella from marrying his dog?

The fact that somebody choses to marry their dog would have zero impact on how I chose to define marriage. They´re unrelated as far as I´m concerned. In my mind people can´t marry dogs. But that´s not what we´re discussing. We´re discussing whether or not I want to use legal means by which to prevent people from marrying their dogs. I don´t. I do not have anything against people marrying their pets if they want to. No problem at all. They already own them, so consent does not have to be secured. Yes, I think it is silly. But there´s plenty of things people do that are silly. This would not be the silliest.

For example. I can´t explain why people do this:

http://mycrazygoodlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/McGruff09_02.jpg

or this:

http://www.crystalxp.net/galerie/img/img-images-folious-supporter-mamine17-18689.jpg

Of all the things people do gay marriage seems one of the less silly things.

 

[mojorising]

When dogs have the right to consent in legal contracts, sure. Other than that, probably not.

What gives you the right to impose legal constraints on the definition of marriage?

If the guy loves his dog then surely love transcends petty notions of legality?

Love matters more than anything some people would say.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But to the rest of us, the sane portion of society, are ok with that it´s up to each and every one who gets married to decide what it means to get married.

What a bunch of cobblers.

So marriage is an entirely subjective proposition is it?

It is in my case.
Sure, we've got a document from the State of Idaho saying we're married. But that doesn't tell us whether we should have three kids or three dogs or six cats.
The marriage license says that the hospital has to treat my wife like my medical proxy, but it doesn't say whether or not I trust her to decide the fate of my organs if I die (some people have an irrational or religious opposition to organ donation).
The license says I have certain rights to her funds after she dies or if we divorce, but it doesn't say if we should have a shared bank account or bank in separate credit unions.
The license says that even the most repressed cops cannot arrest us for sleeping in the same bed, but it doesn't say that she gets to sleep on the side closest to the bathroom, or farthest from the air conditioner.

It is up to each individual to decide what it means to them on their own terms and each subjective definition is equally valid.

No.
It's up to the pair of individuals to decide what it means.
And by your own statement, you're not a part of any pairing, so no vote.