Gay marriage in Australia

[Jokodo]

<snip>They cannot be equal because homosexuality and heterosexuality are very different things.

By he gospel of mojorising. That doesn't make them different in any legally relevant way, and even if it did, that would be no reason to deny equal rights to individuals. If Tom is allowed to marry Sue and Anne is not allowed to marry Sue's identical twin Jane, that's unequal treatment on the basis of sex whichever way you turn it. We don't do that anymore, not legally.

Marriage is very explicitly a heterosexual institution<snip>

It used to be in the old days when the legal concept of husband and wife were substantially different things with different sets of rights and responsibilities (though even that isn't necessarily an obstacle if you allow for same-sex couples to choose who is to take which role). It stopped to do so the moment marriage became a contract between equals, making husband and wife interchangeable labels for one and the same legal concept of spouse. I've learnt from this thread that this happened in 1961 in Australia (congrats, mates, it took us until 1975 in Austria), so you're 54 years late.

 

[dystopian]

Don't worry; like most of what he says, this claim has little relation to reality.

All Australian citizens over the age of 18 have not only the right, but the duty to vote (and may be fined if they fail to enrol, and/or fail to vote, without lawful excuse).1

The only Australian citizens over the age of 18 who may not vote are those who2:
[ist]
[*] are in prison serving a sentence of three years or more
[*] are of unsound mind (incapable of understanding the nature and significance of voting);
[*] have been convicted of treason or treachery and have not been pardoned.
[/list]


Mentally ill persons in Australia, including psychiatric in-patients who have not been convicted of an offence incurring a three year or longer custodial sentence, can only be prevented from voting if it can be shown that they are incapable of understanding the nature and significance of the act of casting a vote.

This is all still seems pretty problematic to me.

So in Australia, *everyone* serving a prison sentence of 3 years or more is denied the right to vote. In the Netherlands, a judge can theoretically deny a convicted criminal the right to vote under certain specific circumstances, but this almost never happens and wouldn't be easy to do. Almost every prisoner in the country, no matter how long they're serving, has the right to vote; and is accommodated in accomplishing this.

In terms of the unsound mind exemption in Australia; it does not seem as if it's as simple a picture as you're painting. Especially the wording is needlessly vague (anyone of "unsound mind" can be denied the right to vote... which could include vast swaths of perfectly capable individuals). Indeed, a UN committee on disability discrimination already called on Australia to remove the exemption. Putting people on disability to the test of whether or not they can understand the importance of voting is needlessly discriminatory... and there doesn't appear to be a solid way to actually determine if someone is incapable of it to begin with.

In the Netherlands, everyone with a disability can vote; that includes people who'se mental capacity is low enough to necessitate them being declared wards of the state. To be fair, it's only been fairly recently that wards of the state have been allowed to vote.

/derail

 

[DrZoidberg]

Don't worry; like most of what he says, this claim has little relation to reality.

All Australian citizens over the age of 18 have not only the right, but the duty to vote (and may be fined if they fail to enrol, and/or fail to vote, without lawful excuse).1

The only Australian citizens over the age of 18 who may not vote are those who2:
[ist]
[*] are in prison serving a sentence of three years or more
[*] are of unsound mind (incapable of understanding the nature and significance of voting);
[*] have been convicted of treason or treachery and have not been pardoned.
[/list]


Mentally ill persons in Australia, including psychiatric in-patients who have not been convicted of an offence incurring a three year or longer custodial sentence, can only be prevented from voting if it can be shown that they are incapable of understanding the nature and significance of the act of casting a vote.

This is all still seems pretty problematic to me.

So in Australia, *everyone* serving a prison sentence of 3 years or more is denied the right to vote. In the Netherlands, a judge can theoretically deny a convicted criminal the right to vote under certain specific circumstances, but this almost never happens and wouldn't be easy to do. Almost every prisoner in the country, no matter how long they're serving, has the right to vote; and is accommodated in accomplishing this.

In terms of the unsound mind exemption in Australia; it does not seem as if it's as simple a picture as you're painting. Especially the wording is needlessly vague (anyone of "unsound mind" can be denied the right to vote... which could include vast swaths of perfectly capable individuals). Indeed, a UN committee on disability discrimination already called on Australia to remove the exemption. Putting people on disability to the test of whether or not they can understand the importance of voting is needlessly discriminatory... and there doesn't appear to be a solid way to actually determine if someone is incapable of it to begin with.

In the Netherlands, everyone with a disability can vote; that includes people who'se mental capacity is low enough to necessitate them being declared wards of the state. To be fair, it's only been fairly recently that wards of the state have been allowed to vote.

/derail

That´s not what the Australian proviso is about. You´re thinking of USA. Australia has mandatory voting. Which I grant is an idiotic law. But anyway... they do. This law makes it problematic for people who are so retarded that they aren´t able to physically cast the ballot, let alone figure out what direction is up.

Me personally, having the right to not-give-a-fuck is part of the basic democratic rights we all should enjoy. But hey, that´s just me and my values. Australians don´t agree.

 

[Jokodo]

Lots of people want lots of things. It does not follow that everyone should get what they want.

For example, you shouldn't get to ban public displays of affection of the sort you find just because you find them icky.

Homosexuality is distasteful to the heterosexual vast majority.

Recently on public transport: a straight couple in their early fourties (all ages are estimates) kissing and obviously very freshly in love, but not doing anything out of the ordinary. A 19-year-old woman watches them visibly disgusted.

Do you think that her personal distaste is an argument to limit public displays of affection between people 30 years or older? If not, why would you consider your personal distaste (by no means shared by all heterosexuals) to be meaningfully different?

 

[dystopian]

That´s not what the Australian proviso is about. You´re thinking of USA.

I'm not, thanks.

 

[bilby]

This is all still seems pretty problematic to me.

So in Australia, *everyone* serving a prison sentence of 3 years or more is denied the right to vote. In the Netherlands, a judge can theoretically deny a convicted criminal the right to vote under certain specific circumstances, but this almost never happens and wouldn't be easy to do. Almost every prisoner in the country, no matter how long they're serving, has the right to vote; and is accommodated in accomplishing this.

In terms of the unsound mind exemption in Australia; it does not seem as if it's as simple a picture as you're painting. Especially the wording is needlessly vague (anyone of "unsound mind" can be denied the right to vote... which could include vast swaths of perfectly capable individuals). Indeed, a UN committee on disability discrimination already called on Australia to remove the exemption. Putting people on disability to the test of whether or not they can understand the importance of voting is needlessly discriminatory... and there doesn't appear to be a solid way to actually determine if someone is incapable of it to begin with.

In the Netherlands, everyone with a disability can vote; that includes people who'se mental capacity is low enough to necessitate them being declared wards of the state. To be fair, it's only been fairly recently that wards of the state have been allowed to vote.

/derail

That´s not what the Australian proviso is about. You´re thinking of USA. Australia has mandatory voting. Which I grant is an idiotic law. But anyway... they do. This law makes it problematic for people who are so retarded that they aren´t able to physically cast the ballot, let alone figure out what direction is up.

Me personally, having the right to not-give-a-fuck is part of the basic democratic rights we all should enjoy. But hey, that´s just me and my values. Australians don´t agree.

Australians have the right not to vote; We just don't have the right not to participate. It is a secret ballot; If you cast a blank or spoiled paper, then your vote is not counted - and as it is a secret ballot, there is no way to even determine that you did so, much less penalise you for it.

If you hate all the candidates, then you need not vote for any of them. But you will get fined if you don't either return a postal vote or attend a polling booth. Not voting is a positive choice; and comparing the turnout and the number of valid ballots cast with other OECD countries, I estimate that at least two thirds of the people in those countries who don't vote would cast a valid ballot once they were at a polling booth. These are people who have enough of an opinion to cast a valid vote, and who would be disenfranchised by their apathy under a purely voluntary system. And there are enough of them to make a big difference to the outcome.

 

[mojorising]

If Tom is allowed to marry Sue and Anne is not allowed to marry Sue's identical twin Jane, that's unequal treatment on the basis of sex whichever way you turn it.

This simplistic blinkered nonsense avoids acknowledging that a man and another man is very different to a man and a woman.

The traditional view is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

It is reasonable to offer alternative legal structures for arrangements that differ from this structure.

There is nothing morally wrong with recognising that the human species is made of 2 separate genders and these genders are significantly different in many ways. This is all that the traditional view of marriage is doing and society is not denying homosexuals the right to go about their business anymore we are just saying that it is a different business to marriage, which according to the traditional definition is a true statement.

 

[Ford]

The traditional view is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Can people please stop repeating this bullshit right wing talking point?


I can get in my car tomorrow morning, drive up to the Utah/Arizona border and find myself in a community for whom the "traditional view" of marriage is that of one man and as many wives as he can afford to support. Underage, closely related, it doesn't matter. And this is a view that was held as not just "traditional," but perfectly legal until Utah applied for statehood and had to officially disavow polygamy.


A practice which is still considered a "traditional view" in many countries. In fact polygamy has an arguably longer history than the "one man, one woman" bullshit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If Tom is allowed to marry Sue and Anne is not allowed to marry Sue's identical twin Jane, that's unequal treatment on the basis of sex whichever way you turn it.

This simplistic blinkered nonsense avoids acknowledging that a man and another man is very different to a man and a woman.

And i notice you completely avoid actually listing the differences, aside from some sexist claims from the 50's....

marriage, which according to the traditional definition is a true statement.

Jesus fuck. Inertia is not a compelling reason to discriminate against human beings.

 

[bilby]

Appeal to tradition (aka argumentum ad antiquitatem) is a logical fallacy.

Using an appeal to tradition as though it was an argument represents a failure not only to understand what it is sensible, reasonable and rational to think, but, even worse, a failure to understand how this whole 'thinking' business actually works.

We are in the business of making new traditions - something that societies have always done. You can lead, follow, or get out of the way.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

mojo, I understand that tradition is the reason you don't like it.

Can you understand that your personal dislike isn't the standard to which your whole society adheres?

Can you further understand that claiming to represent a majority, when you don't, is dishonest?

 

[Jokodo]

If Tom is allowed to marry Sue and Anne is not allowed to marry Sue's identical twin Jane, that's unequal treatment on the basis of sex whichever way you turn it.

This simplistic blinkered nonsense avoids acknowledging that a man and another man is very different to a man and a woman.

In the same way in which letting Sue, Anne, and Jane vote avoids acknowledging that a woman is "very different" from a man.

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>There is nothing morally wrong with recognising that the human species is made of 2 separate genders and these genders are significantly different in many ways. <snip>

Morals hardly enters into it at this point. As a society, we've decided decades ago that those differences, whether or not you find them significant, should have no legal implications. Banning same-sex marriage is a glaring inconsistency in that context.

 

[mojorising]

Appeal to tradition (aka argumentum ad antiquitatem) is a logical fallacy.

Using an appeal to tradition as though it was an argument represents a failure not only to understand what it is sensible, reasonable and rational to think, but, even worse, a failure to understand how this whole 'thinking' business actually works.

You sound like Lawrence Logic from the Viz comic. The entirety of the human social experience does not revolve around logic, we are emotional creatures, and there is nothing inherently logical in the argument for changing marriage to accommodate homosexuals. It is a moral and political argument not a logical argument.

Appealing to tradition is a valid basis on which to make an argument.

We are in the business of making new traditions - something that societies have always done. You can lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Or I can defend an existing tradition. If you want to make a new tradition that is fine just leave the existing ones alone.

 

[dystopian]

The entirety of the human social experience does not revolve around logic, we are emotional creatures, and there is nothing inherently logical in the argument for changing marriage to accommodate homosexuals.

This entire thread is nothing but people explaining the logic of changing marriage to include gay people; at not one single point in this entire thread have you present a coherent argument for why it's illogical.

It is a moral and political argument not a logical argument.

Oh good, because in addition to being logical; giving gay people the right to marry is also the *only* moral position.

Appealing to tradition is a valid basis on which to make an argument.

No, it isn't.

Or I can defend an existing tradition. If you want to make a new tradition that is fine just leave the existing ones alone.

No.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is a moral and political argument not a logical argument.

Then why do you keep claiming that your side is the 'reasonable' side? Reason IS the use of logic in constructing your position.

Or I can defend an existing tradition.

You're defending the tradition at the cost of discriminating against citizens. That's bad.

And, really, it's clear that you don't give a fuck about tradition, mojo. You're personally uncomfortable with the thought of two men playing butt darts and have constructed everything else as a rationalization.

 

[Jokodo]

You sound like Lawrence Logic from the Viz comic. The entirety of the human social experience does not revolve around logic, we are emotional creatures, and there is nothing inherently logical in the argument for changing marriage to accommodate homosexuals. It is a moral and political argument not a logical argument.

Appealing to tradition is a valid basis on which to make an argument.

We are in the business of making new traditions - something that societies have always done. You can lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Or I can defend an existing tradition. If you want to make a new tradition that is fine just leave the existing ones alone.

Said the slavers.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You sound like Lawrence Logic from the Viz comic. The entirety of the human social experience does not revolve around logic, we are emotional creatures, and there is nothing inherently logical in the argument for changing marriage to accommodate homosexuals. It is a moral and political argument not a logical argument.

Appealing to tradition is a valid basis on which to make an argument.



Or I can defend an existing tradition. If you want to make a new tradition that is fine just leave the existing ones alone.

Said the slavers.

Which is the main point. If someone wants to start a new tradition, the question of "why do we still have the existing tradition?" is the most important question. If it can't be defended by anything beyond "Because it's an existing tradition" then it's probably time to dump the existing tradition as something that's either become irrelevant over time or that should never have become a tradition in the first place.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Or I can defend an existing tradition. If you want to make a new tradition that is fine just leave the existing ones alone.

I also recall that you never really showed that this is an exclusive tradition. You hand waived on any examples that went against your claim of a universal cultural tradition that only ever ever ever meant men and women.
the 'tradition' includes men marrying men, women marrying dogs, people marrying snakes and horses and the Eiffel Tower.

It's not a sound basis for determining modern laws as it doesn't uphold what you want to uphold, it's not universal and it sure as shit doesn't go back to the stone age as you claimed initially.

 

[atrib]

You sound like Lawrence Logic from the Viz comic. The entirety of the human social experience does not revolve around logic, we are emotional creatures, and there is nothing inherently logical in the argument for changing marriage to accommodate homosexuals. It is a moral and political argument not a logical argument.

Appealing to tradition is a valid basis on which to make an argument.

1. It used to be traditional for hundreds of years for white people of European descent living in America to own slaves from Africa. It used to be traditional for a vast majority of the written history of our species for people to own slaves. In recent history, this tradition has been changed in most advanced nations, and with very good reason. Similarly, the long tradition of not allowing homosexual people to enjoy the same rights and liberties as heterosexual people has changed/is changing in most advanced nations. You defend a discriminatory tradition just as your ancestors might have defended slavery. You are on the wrong side of history.

2. You have not established that marriage between one man and one woman has been a tradition amongst humans. In fact, for the vast majority of recorded human history, many cultures have defined marriage in various ways, between one man and many women, or in some other fashion. Many still do! Your entire premise is based on this falsehood. Your refusal to acknowledge this factual rebuttal to your argument does not speak well of your integrity, but given your bigoted worldview, I don't think you need to worry about your reputation being tarnished.

We are in the business of making new traditions - something that societies have always done. You can lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Or I can defend an existing tradition. If you want to make a new tradition that is fine just leave the existing ones alone.

Your "new tradition" would still treat homosexual people as second class citizens who do not enjoy the same rights and freedoms as heterosexuals. Much as your ancestors might have treated black people as second class citizens who did not enjoy the same rights and freedoms as white people, even after the founding of this nation and the constitution upon which it is based. You can defend this tradition all you want, but all that does is make you a bigot.

It is a moral and political argument not a logical argument.

We are still waiting for you to explain why heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality. Yeah, we know, you are not going to tell us.