Gay marriage in Australia

[Keith&Co.]

But discrimination based solely on people being 'different' is substantially the same.
And substantially stupid.
So it's a perfect analogy, mojo.

It is far from a perfect analogy since 'difference' can encompass almost anything.

And so can 'stupid,' which was the salient detail in my comparison. The 'discrimination' is based on nothing rational.

Racial difference is literally skin deep.

That's literally not true.

Homosexuality is a behavioural difference which involves the mis-wiring (as I would assert and you would disagree) of the human sex drive which makes the individual defective and deserving of care and protection but not elevation to a status of sexuality equality. ...yes, I know, we have been here before.

And you keep going back there. So that's the 'irrational' point.
You've been offered every chance to show that it is, indeed, a problem or a failing or 'bad' in any way beyond you finding it 'icky' and expecting that to be a point in favor of discrimination.
You've failed.

So why do you keep flogging it?

 

[DrZoidberg]

A gay man marrying another man has zero impact on anybody else. Where´s the annoyance to anyone?

Well it annoys me and it annoys some other people who regard marriage as being between a man and a woman for reasons that are not entirely devoid of rationality.

Married gays look confusingly similar to unmarried gays. Unless you take the time to find out that they´re married, you won´t. So that´s the solution. Stop snooping into the private life of gays and everybody wins. They can get to be married and you won´t be annoyed. Do you think you can manage that?

 

[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.

There are heterosexual couples who marry because they want to stop their parents' constant nagging. There are such as marry because it's as good an excuse as any to throw a big party. There are ones who marry because one of the two is insecure about how devoted the other really is, and the wants to reaffirm him (or her). There are ones that marry because they don't want to have to explain why they have a different surname from their child's. There are ones that marry because they want to show off to all their friends how deep and firm their relationship really is (whether it's true or not). There are ones that marry because their hitherto informal relationship has started to feel boring and empty over the years and they hope to give it a new lease of life (some of them even succeed, many don't and the relationship falls apart within a year or two of the wedding, after having lived together for many years before). Some may even marry because they feel it's a sin to have sex out of wedlock.

People, heterosexual people, marry for a myriad different reasons, ascribing a myriad different meanings to marriage. Each one of those already existing meanings will be shared by some homosexual couples, and none that don't already exist have to be invented.

That is an interesting dissertation on the myriad emotional reasons for marriage Jokodo but not really relevant as an argument for redefining marriage from being between a man and a woman to being between any 2 consenting adults.

 

[mojorising]

Well it annoys me and it annoys some other people who regard marriage as being between a man and a woman for reasons that are not entirely devoid of rationality.

Married gays look confusingly similar to unmarried gays. Unless you take the time to find out that they´re married, you won´t. So that´s the solution. Stop snooping into the private life of gays and everybody wins. They can get to be married and you won´t be annoyed. Do you think you can manage that?

Nobody is snooping. They are free to make any kind of commitment they want and even have it legally recognised. They do not need to redefine the pre-existing cultural institution of marriage to achieve this.

 

[mojorising]

It is far from a perfect analogy since 'difference' can encompass almost anything.

And so can 'stupid,' which was the salient detail in my comparison. The 'discrimination' is based on nothing rational.

Racial difference is literally skin deep.

That's literally not true.

Homosexuality is a behavioural difference which involves the mis-wiring (as I would assert and you would disagree) of the human sex drive which makes the individual defective and deserving of care and protection but not elevation to a status of sexuality equality. ...yes, I know, we have been here before.

And you keep going back there. So that's the 'irrational' point.
You've been offered every chance to show that it is, indeed, a problem or a failing or 'bad' in any way beyond you finding it 'icky' and expecting that to be a point in favor of discrimination.
You've failed.

So why do you keep flogging it?

My 'failure' would seem to be subjective.

The counter-arguments posed so far seem ephemeral and reaching at best.

 

[Jokodo]

A gay man marrying another man has zero impact on anybody else. Where´s the annoyance to anyone?

Well it annoys me and it annoys some other people who regard marriage as being between a man and a woman for reasons that are not entirely devoid of rationality.

Well it annoys me and it annoys others who've never really gotten around the fact that the Earth is (roughly) a sphere that people in Australia have their heads pointing the wrong way. It doesn't effect my life in any measurable way, but I'm still going to demand that you all be henceforth legally required to walk on your hands to rectify that fact. Because obviously "it annoys me to know that {people of the same sex you love each other/people whose head points the wrong way while walking} exist" is a good enough reason to demand legal action.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Nobody is snooping. They are free to make any kind of commitment they want and even have it legally recognised. They do not need to redefine the pre-existing cultural institution of marriage to achieve this.

But marriage is a thing with a constantly changing definition anyways. Your position is kind of like when the Amish say "1872 - that's when they nailed the perfect level of technology and we should stop there".

 

[mojorising]

Nobody is snooping. They are free to make any kind of commitment they want and even have it legally recognised. They do not need to redefine the pre-existing cultural institution of marriage to achieve this.

But marriage is a thing with a constantly changing definition anyways. Your position is kind of like when the Amish say "1872 - that's when they nailed the perfect level of technology and we should stop there".

I would say throughout recorded history it has always been between a man and a woman. A fairly constant and unchanging feature despite the changes in women's rights over the centuries etc.

 

[Jokodo]

There are heterosexual couples who marry because they want to stop their parents' constant nagging. There are such as marry because it's as good an excuse as any to throw a big party. There are ones who marry because one of the two is insecure about how devoted the other really is, and the wants to reaffirm him (or her). There are ones that marry because they don't want to have to explain why they have a different surname from their child's. There are ones that marry because they want to show off to all their friends how deep and firm their relationship really is (whether it's true or not). There are ones that marry because their hitherto informal relationship has started to feel boring and empty over the years and they hope to give it a new lease of life (some of them even succeed, many don't and the relationship falls apart within a year or two of the wedding, after having lived together for many years before). Some may even marry because they feel it's a sin to have sex out of wedlock.

People, heterosexual people, marry for a myriad different reasons, ascribing a myriad different meanings to marriage. Each one of those already existing meanings will be shared by some homosexual couples, and none that don't already exist have to be invented.

That is an interesting dissertation on the myriad emotional reasons for marriage Jokodo but not really relevant as an argument for redefining marriage from being between a man and a woman to being between any 2 consenting adults.

Since you have claimed that (paraphrasing, please rectify if I misunderstood your point but I don't think I have) "if everyone can ascribe their own meaning to marriage, marriage ends up with no meaning whatsoever", showing that already, and only looking at heterosexual couples, people are ascribing their own meanings to marriage is absolutely relevant. Because it either shows that your alleged chain of reasoning is flawed (in which case you have no argument), or that marriage already is void of meaning (and arguably always was) - in which case there's no need to defend its meaning.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Married gays look confusingly similar to unmarried gays. Unless you take the time to find out that they´re married, you won´t. So that´s the solution. Stop snooping into the private life of gays and everybody wins. They can get to be married and you won´t be annoyed. Do you think you can manage that?

Nobody is snooping. They are free to make any kind of commitment they want and even have it legally recognised. They do not need to redefine the pre-existing cultural institution of marriage to achieve this.

You would have to snoop in order to find out a specific gay couple were married. It´s not something people advertise, in general. Or are you planing on redefining the word "snoop"?

Here´s an analogy. An Islamic man being offended when he read in a newspaper that somebody in a western country said something nasty about Mohammed. He is going out of his way to be offended and annoyed. It´s the same with you and gay marriage.

You would have to make quite a lot of effort in order for you to find out that there are married homosexuals around you. If you don´t put in that effort to find out you won´t be annoyed or offended by it. So just lay off snooping, and the problem would be solved. Or are you going to say that you suffer from some sort of compulsive snooping mental problem that you also want to force gays to be considerate of? Perhaps as gratitude to you for giving them absolutely nothing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

My 'failure' would seem to be subjective.

The counter-arguments posed so far seem ephemeral and reaching at best.

That's what you said about the science, too.

Your view of 'the traditoin' of marriage doesn't match history, isn't culturally universal, and if anyone comes up with counter examples you claim they're being 'imaginative.' As for your own evidence, you rely heavily on 'it's obvious' and 'it's common sense' and other ephemeral claims with nothing to back them up. And you appeal to 'evolutionary reading' that you cannot attribute.

And any science you don't like is the result of researchers lies.

It's remarkably similar to the tactics of a creationist.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But marriage is a thing with a constantly changing definition anyways. Your position is kind of like when the Amish say "1872 - that's when they nailed the perfect level of technology and we should stop there".

I would say throughout recorded history it has always been between a man and a woman. A fairly constant and unchanging feature despite the changes in women's rights over the centuries etc.

But what you've failed to clarify is why that's such an essential feature that can't change when all the other parts of the definition change constantly.

You're just asserting that it's important without justifying the assertion.

 

[mojorising]

That is an interesting dissertation on the myriad emotional reasons for marriage Jokodo but not really relevant as an argument for redefining marriage from being between a man and a woman to being between any 2 consenting adults.

Since you have claimed that (paraphrasing, please rectify if I misunderstood your point but I don't think I have) "if everyone can ascribe their own meaning to marriage, marriage ends up with no meaning whatsoever", showing that already, and only looking at heterosexual couples, people are ascribing their own meanings to marriage is absolutely relevant. Because it either shows that your alleged chain of reasoning is flawed (in which case you have no argument), or that marriage already is void of meaning (and arguably always was) - in which case there's no need to defend its meaning.

Within the context of marriage being between a man and a woman, yes, marriage can have very many emotionally tactical and strategic purposes. This point, while interesting, does not really speak to the issue of why we should change the basic sexual parameters of marriage.

 

[mojorising]

I would say throughout recorded history it has always been between a man and a woman. A fairly constant and unchanging feature despite the changes in women's rights over the centuries etc.

But what you've failed to clarify is why that's such an essential feature that can't change when all the other parts of the definition change constantly.

You're just asserting that it's important without justifying the assertion.

My main argument just goes back to the issue of heritage and tradition. I find the evidence that marriage, in historical terms, has been anything other than the pair-bonding between a man and a woman to be extremely tenuous.

I think if homosexuals want to pair bond then that is new thing that society can easily tolerate. I don't see any reason why the cultural tradition of marriage needs to be hijacked and redefined to achieve this.

Why don't we simply create a new tradition and call it something else?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But marriage is a thing with a constantly changing definition anyways. Your position is kind of like when the Amish say "1872 - that's when they nailed the perfect level of technology and we should stop there".

I would say throughout recorded history it has always been between a man and a woman. A fairly constant and unchanging feature despite the changes in women's rights over the centuries etc.

Ah.
So MARRIAGE hasn't changed. Just a massive overhaul to the rights of women.

That's a useful distinction. It's not like taking the decision out of the parent's hands and giving it to the bride substantially alters the TRADITIONAL CULTURAL VIEW of what MARRIAGE REALLY MEANS, when they have to update that view to consider that the girl might say no, or get bent.

- - - Updated - - -

This point, while interesting, does not really speak to the issue of why we should change the basic sexual parameters of marriage.

This from someone claiming that the entire, exclusive purpose of marriage is for the creation of progeny. Except when he has to defend childless couples being allowed to marry...

It speaks to the fact that your claimed tradition of marriage is rather mythical.

 

[Jokodo]

But what you've failed to clarify is why that's such an essential feature that can't change when all the other parts of the definition change constantly.

You're just asserting that it's important without justifying the assertion.

My main argument just goes back to the issue of heritage and tradition. I find the evidence that marriage, in historical terms, has been anything other than the pair-bonding between a man and a woman to be extremely tenuous.

I think if homosexuals want to pair bond then that is new thing that society can easily tolerate. I don't see any reason why the cultural tradition of marriage needs to be hijacked and redefined to achieve this.

Why don't we simply create a new tradition and call it something else?

You're wrong. The traditional definition of marriage isn't between a man and a woman but of a woman, by a man.

I think if bluestockings want to have pair bonds where they pretend to be a man's equal, and find any man willing to play a long, society can easily tolerate. I don't see any reason why the cultural tradition of marriage needs to be hijacked and redefined to achieve this.

</1915-version-of-mojorising>

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why don't we simply create a new tradition and call it something else?

Because the reason you want 'something else' is so that you can further discriminate against gays as parents.
Simply justifying further discrimination is not a 'common sense' justification for discrimination.

 

[mojorising]

This point, while interesting, does not really speak to the issue of why we should change the basic sexual parameters of marriage.

This from someone claiming that the entire, exclusive purpose of marriage is for the creation of progeny. Except when he has to defend childless couples being allowed to marry...

It speaks to the fact that your claimed tradition of marriage is rather mythical.

Of course marriage between a man and a woman has evolved over the millenia. Inevitably with the almost complete revision of human culture. But the fact that marriage throughout this tortuous evolution has had that constant and defining dimension of it being a pair-bonding of specifically a man and a woman is not something you can deny no matter how much 2015's political agenda demands it.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

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?

It hadn't occurred to me, but is this your first ever debate (and I am being generous with that term) on same-sex marriage with those who support it? Are we popping your cherry here? I find it very hard to believe you would ask that question other wise.

If the man wants to say he married his dog and have a little ceremony, I don't actually care as long as he isn't abusing the dog. Legally, the dog cannot consent to the marriage contract, neither can it hold the rights and responsibilities of spouses. it's the same basic reason children cannot be married in (most) modern countries. Adult gay people can do both of those things. Not only can they do them, but they have need to be able to do the. legally.

 

[Jokodo]

This from someone claiming that the entire, exclusive purpose of marriage is for the creation of progeny. Except when he has to defend childless couples being allowed to marry...

It speaks to the fact that your claimed tradition of marriage is rather mythical.

Of course marriage between a man and a woman has evolved over the millenia. Inevitably with the almost complete revision of human culture. But the fact that marriage throughout this tortuous evolution has had that constant and defining dimension of it being a pair-bonding of specifically a man and a woman is not something you can deny no matter how much 2015's political agenda demands it.

For much of its history, it was the act of acquisition of a woman by a man. That's not pair-bonding.