Gay marriage in Australia

[TSwizzle]

LGBT community, if you can really destroy the institution of marriage, more power to you! Let it burn.

Finally, after 810 posts somebody gets to the crux of the matter.

 

[Keith&Co.]

LGBT community, if you can really destroy the institution of marriage, more power to you! Let it burn.

Finally, after 810 posts somebody gets to the crux of the matter.

That's the crux?

Okay.

How will same sex marriage destroy the institution of marriage?

 

[bilby]

Well if it can, could I ask for them to get on with it please. I am planning a wedding for next year, and if marriage is going to be destroyed, I would be grateful if they could do it before I pay a bunch of non-refundable deposits.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What? Why would ANYONE subscribe to playboy in the age of the internet? Unless you're in it for the articles?

I do read the articles, but I give them money for their editorial stances. Hef's been very progressive on sexual freedoms, including gay rights.


I keep the old copies for the boobies, of course.

And for the science-fiction. Heff was the first to give science-fiction some proper attention in the mainstream press. Heff played a major role in shifting science-fiction from being mainly geared toward children to adults. Which is something I will be eternally grateful to Playboy for. Without him we´d have a hell of a lot less 50'ies and 60'ies quality sci-fi.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well if it can, could I ask for them to get on with it please. I am planning a wedding for next year, and if marriage is going to be destroyed, I would be grateful if they could do it before I pay a bunch of non-refundable deposits.

What? But if Marriage is such a bedrock issue of civilization, wouldn't they have a paragraph in the contract for it?
"All deposits returned upon the collapse of civilization in general and/or of the marriage industry in specific, if due to the legalization of men marrying: Horses, Dogs, Sex Dolls (inflatable or other formats), Men, Pre-Verbal Children, Cartoon Characters or Software."
Seems only prudent....

 

[Rhea]

You're not married. Does gay marriage affect your ability to attract a mate and solemnize your union?

It probably does. Given the option between marrying another woman or mojo, I think even straight women would settle on the former. I mean, the sex might be awkward and unpleasant for a woman who isn't gay, but it still has to better than the latter option. While it's unlikely ever to come down to that in practice, it still drops him down one more rung on the hypothetical ladder of marriageability.

Well, I'm relentlessly straight, so I think for me I'd choose option C; hanging with the fun women but not engaging in sex with them. It's just not my thing. But masturbation would be way better than sleeping with a guy who thinks it's okay to oppress and cause emotional and financial pain to other human beings for no reason.

(although this was quite funny to me and I'm glad you posted it!)

 

[Rhea]

We can offer new traditions and new laws for them.

But they don't need a new one. The existing one suits them just perfectly. Since they want the same thing out of it that I do (I say that, as I'm a married person, and since you are not, maybe what you want out of marriage isn't well defined).

In this kind of situation the most sensible solution is to create new traditions and laws to accommodate the newly accepted group. This avoids friction with the existing majority while facilitating the lives of the new group with all their practical needs.

Oh! Ooops! You didn't get the memo yet! The EXISTING MAJORITY is fine with homosexual marriage. You're the freak on this.

2 men getting together is significantly different to a man and a woman. There are valid arguments on both sides regarding whether to create new traditions/laws or change existing ones. I accept that you can make a case in favour of the latter I just don't agree with the case. Has a single one of you got the balls to admit that there is valid case in favour of the former?

It wouldn't take balls - that's the kind of think that eschews rationality. Who thinks that way? "My opinion is based on GUTS!" No, it would take a valid argument, which ffor some reason you have declined to put forth. We're all pretty sure you don't even have an argument to let us ponder, 'cause you keep just spewing emotions and balls.

No you don't because you are beholden to the new conformism of 'equality'. It is a thought-crime to point out differences between people even when they are substantial and obvious if it conflicts with a political goal which contains the word 'equality'.

LOL, no it's a thought-crime to try to assert a position without ever presenting the "argument" part that backs up your position.


..

We have now deemed that homosexuality teenagerhood is socially acceptable. Homosexuality teenagerhood is still not understood by science yet. It is likely to be a developmental defect in the human sexual instinct but we understand and accept the reality of homosexuality teenagerhood and understand that homosexuals teenagers cannot help their nature.

We let teenagers marry.

Homos are really no more weird than grown men who aren't married. To be honest. Your state is weirder than a sexually active homosexual man's is.

Also, it cracks me right up that you never mention lesbians. They don't bother you?

Have you ever thought that maybe you are bi and that's why this bothers you so much? Because it's an actual possibility for you? I'm, as I said, relentlessly straight. And the whole gay thing has just never jiggled my meter in anyway because it is NO THREAT at all to me. I'm not interested and there's really no chance I would be. They can do whatever they want and I have ZERO temptation to join in and change my current trajectory. I'm always a little surprised by the people who say they feel such a threatened anxiety about it. How can it even ping your emotions if you have not even a flicker of interest, like me? I don't get that part.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Well, I'm relentlessly straight, so I think for me I'd choose option C; hanging with the fun women but not engaging in sex with them. It's just not my thing. But masturbation would be way better than sleeping with a guy who thinks it's okay to oppress and cause emotional and financial pain to other human beings for no reason.

Fortunately there are plenty of men in this day and age who are not such bigots. Mojo is a funny distraction on a forum board, but in some parts of the world it seems he's becoming a relic, as you've noted yourself.

 

[mojorising]

But they don't need a new one. The existing one suits them just perfectly.

But it does not suit people who hold a traditional view of marriage.

There are basically 2 solutions for accommodating the practical legal needs of homosexuals.

1. Redefine the existing legal and cultural institution of marriage

2. Create a new legal and cultural institution for homosexual partnerships

Neither one is better than the other from a practical point of view.

They both achieve the same outcome.

One of the reasons that the former is the preferred option by some is that it gives a chance for the homosexual lobby to cause offence to the traditional lobby as well as achieve a practical result. If all they wanted was a practical result then the option that gets a result and also avoids causing offence to the majority would be the better option.

This is not simply about a practical result though, it is about political point-scoring and a positive desire to cause offence to people with a traditional view of marriage since the homosexual lobby senses the opportunity for such offence to be caused without reprisal in the current warped political climate.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

There are basically 2 solutions for accommodating the practical legal needs of homosexuals.

1. Redefine the existing legal and cultural institution of marriage

2. Create a new legal and cultural institution for homosexual partnerships

Neither one is better than the other from a practical point of view.

The first one is more traditional. Redefining marriage is an ancient tradition and I will not tolerate people like you trying to warp that tradition by side-stepping it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But they don't need a new one. The existing one suits them just perfectly.

But it does not suit people who hold a traditional view of marriage.

Do you have a receipt showing that you own the view of marriage?
Is there any sort of legal precedent of continuing discrimination because some people are traditionalists?

There are basically 2 solutions for accommodating the practical legal needs of homosexuals.

1. Redefine the existing legal and cultural institution of marriage

2. Create a new legal and cultural institution for homosexual partnerships

'Kay.

Neither one is better than the other from a practical point of view.

Bullshit. Practically and legally, including gays in existing legal precedents is far better, simpler, faster and more effective.
It's less costly to change 'marriage' to include same sex than to rewrite every single law and company policy and visiting rules to include marriage and samesexpartnerships.

They both achieve the same outcome.

No, they do not. Your desired outcome is to be able to discriminate further against gays and not let them adopt kids. So, no, it's not the same outcome. It's a costly way to keep the discriminatino in place.

One of the reasons that the former is the preferred option by some is that it gives a chance for the homosexual lobby to cause offence to the traditional lobby as well as achieve a practical result. If all they wanted was a practical result then the option that gets a result and also avoids causing offence to the majority would be the better option.

What makes it 'better?'
Your method would take years to fully implement and cost many man-hours and would still result in lawsuits as the variations shake out.
What makes your view of tradition worth that much time and money?

This is not simply about a practical result though,

Actualy, it is, though you refuse to see it.

it is about political point-scoring and a positive desire to cause offence to people with a traditional view of marriage since the homosexual lobby senses the opportunity for such offence to be caused without reprisal in the current warped political climate.

So, we add 'conspiracy theorist' to your sexism, bigotry and general ignorance.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's simple, Mojo. They want equality.
Time after time through history various groups have wanted equality.
This offends people from the majority who booger up all sorts of rationalizations about why this would be a bad idea.

Separate But Equal isn't equality.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't equality.
Shut up and let us still treat you as second class citizens, but without the beatings, that's not equality.


The desire for equality is more than sufficient to explain the efforts, goals, desires of the people supporting extending marriage to include same-sex religions, without a need to suppose any sort of desire for revenge, offense, or nausea in the efforts.

The fact that this does drive you squirrelly is merely a happy side effect. But for the most part, if you don't raise your hand to make a big deal about how offended you are, no one's going to notice that they've offended you. And they're STILl going to want equality, without that little thrill of knowing they've offended you.

 

[mojorising]

Separate But Equal isn't equality.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't equality.
Shut up and let us still treat you as second class citizens, but without the beatings, that's not equality.

That is a false representation of the situation.

Offering to support homosexuals desire to form pair bonds by creating new cultural and legal arrangements is not treating them like second class citizens.

Homosexuality has since time immemorial been taboo and in most cases illegal.

Homosexuality has made great strides in recent decades. They are now socially accepted within certain limits and legally protected.

Catering for their legal needs can be done in one of 2 ways as described earlier.

Certain political groups wants to redefine existing marriage to embrace homosexual partnerships. This is an attempt to position homosexual partnerships as equal to heterosexual partnerships with no difference. This reminds me of feminist movements of the 1970s who tried to insist that there was zero difference between men and women. While this may resonate politically with the pro-homosexual lobby the problem is that it is simply not true. They are not the same; they are different.

This leaves us with the alternative and equally (or even more so) valid solution of creating new social and legal structures to accommodate homosexuals.

There is nothing wrong with this approach from a practical point of view except that it grates politically with the social agenda which is trying to assert that there is zero difference between homosexual and heterosexual partnerships.

There is not zero difference, there is substantial real difference and on that basis an approach inv0olving new legal and social structures is the most sensible approach in my view.

 

[Jokodo]

Separate But Equal isn't equality.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't equality.
Shut up and let us still treat you as second class citizens, but without the beatings, that's not equality.

That is a false representation of the situation.

Offering to support homosexuals desire to form pair bonds by creating new cultural and legal arrangements is not treating them like second class citizens.

Yes it is. It's like suggesting to create a separate second chamber of parliament with a solely advisory function consisting solely of women and voted for by women instead of admitting them to the general elections back when the new fad was women's suffrage.

Homosexuality has since time immemorial been taboo and in most cases illegal.

That's not universally true of all cultures, and it's also 100% irrelevant to what should be.

Homosexuality has made great strides in recent decades. They are now socially accepted within certain limits and legally protected.

Catering for their legal needs can be done in one of 2 ways as described earlier.

Certain political groups wants to redefine existing marriage to embrace homosexual partnerships. This is an attempt to position homosexual partnerships as equal to heterosexual partnerships with no difference.

If you know of any legally relevant differences, you've had 80+ pages of discussion to bring them up, and failed to do so.

This reminds me of feminist movements of the 1970s who tried to insist that there was zero difference between men and women.

We've decided decades ago that whatever differences there are shouldn't matter legally. If you have qualms with that decision, just say so.

If more men than women spend their evenings watching football because that's how they roll, that's OK. If more men then women and up as women's spouses because that's how they roll (and because they have what it takes to entice those women into a relationship), that's also OK. But banning same-sex marriages is more akin to prohibiting women from watching football than to accepting that men will probably always be more into it in aggregate.

While this may resonate politically with the pro-homosexual lobby the problem is that it is simply not true. They are not the same; they are different.

This leaves us with the alternative and equally (or even more so) valid solution of creating new social and legal structures to accommodate homosexuals.

There is nothing wrong with this approach from a practical point of view except that it grates politically with the social agenda which is trying to assert that there is zero difference between homosexual and heterosexual partnerships.

There is not zero difference, there is substantial real difference and on that basis an approach inv0olving new legal and social structures is the most sensible approach in my view.

There are "substantial real differences" between a marriage between a marriage where one person is substantially older vs. one where both are of the same age. There are "substantial real differences" between marriages among people who've been in a live-in relationship for several years before formalising their arrangement and those that haven't. There are "substantial real differences" between marriages where both partners bring children from previous relationships, marriages where neither has children but who plan on having children within this relationship, and marriages where no children are foreseen or even possible.

None of those differences justifies legally discriminating between those different types of marriage. If you think your favourite difference does, you're gonna have to say something more substantial than "but it's so different!"

 

[Keith&Co.]

Separate But Equal isn't equality.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't equality.
Shut up and let us still treat you as second class citizens, but without the beatings, that's not equality.

That is a false representation of the situation.

Offering to support homosexuals desire to form pair bonds by creating new cultural and legal arrangements is not treating them like second class citizens.

It is when your expressed goal is to deny them some of the benefits of actual marriage. You want them separate exactly because you want their rights to be lesser.

Homosexuality has since time immemorial been taboo and in most cases illegal.

Big whoop.

Homosexuality has made great strides in recent decades. They are now socially accepted within certain limits and legally protected.

Just not equal.

Catering for their legal needs can be done in one of 2 ways as described earlier.

Yes. And one of those two ways is far more practical than the other. You just misstate the facts.

Certain political groups wants to redefine existing marriage to embrace homosexual partnerships.

it's not really redefining marriage. Nothing changes for you, or anyone else, except who gets to participate.
The position of groom and bride don't change.
The rights of the participants don't change.
Your marriage act of 1961 made more significant changes than adding same-sex marriage will.

This is an attempt to position homosexual partnerships as equal to heterosexual partnerships with no difference.

And we've been patiently waiting for your to show any sort of legal basis for a difference.
So far, bupkes.

This reminds me of feminist movements of the 1970s who tried to insist that there was zero difference between men and women. While this may resonate politically with the pro-homosexual lobby the problem is that it is simply not true. They are not the same; they are different.

Asserted once more, without the differences being noted.

I think you're just bullshitting, mojo.

What are these differences that have or should have legal consequences?

We've tried to guess.

Anal sex? Not all gays practice that, and some straight couples do.
Infertility? No one seems to care that straight couples have this problem.
Etc. and etc.

This leaves us with the alternative and equally (or even more so) valid solution of creating new social and legal structures to accommodate homosexuals.

NO, we're NOT left with this, because you haven't yet supported your claims.
What's different in what ways that the law should give a rat's ass?

There is nothing wrong with this approach from a practical point of view except that it grates politically with the social agenda which is trying to assert that there is zero difference between homosexual and heterosexual partnerships.

And it'll cost a lot more, practically.
And there will be holes, practically.
And it extends beyond just the marriage law, practically.

You're whistling past the graveyard.

There is not zero difference, there is substantial real difference and on that basis an approach inv0olving new legal and social structures is the most sensible approach in my view.

It's not sensible until you start making sense.
You've yet to give those significant differences and the legal consequences that would drive this treatment.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Offering to support homosexuals desire to form pair bonds by creating new cultural and legal arrangements is not treating them like second class citizens.

Yes it is. It's like suggesting to create a separate second chamber of parliament with a solely advisory function consisting solely of women and voted for by women instead of admitting them to the general elections back when the new fad was women's suffrage.

Or having male, female and colored bathrooms. EVEN IF the Colored Folks' water closet is kept just as clean, and has just as many stalls, and no one takes the coloreds' toilet paper because the women's is running low, it's treating them as 'second class citizens.'

 

[Jokodo]

They are not the same; they are different.

Asserted once more, without the differences being noted.

I think you're just bullshitting, mojo.

What are these differences that have or should have legal consequences?

We've tried to guess.

Anal sex? Not all gays practice that, and some straight couples do.
Infertility? No one seems to care that straight couples have this problem.
Etc. and etc.

Maybe mojorising does think that heterosexual couples that practice anal sex (whether male on female, or female on male with a strapon, or both, not that I know anything about either ) should have their marriages annulled, as well as intentionally or unintentionally (after an adequate waiting period) childless marriages? He's never come out explicitly stating the opposite, has he?

 

[Keith&Co.]

whether male on female, or female on male with a strapon, or both, not that I know anything about either

He doesn't seem to care at all about women with or without strap ons, with or without male partners.

No, he's pretty well pegged himself as a homophobe and tries to flog that as a 'rational, practical' stance for everyone to adopt.

 

[Rhea]

But they don't need a new one. The existing one suits them just perfectly.

But it does not suit people who hold a traditional view of marriage.

What!?! What about the current definition of marriage doesn't suit you!? You said you liked it and wanted to keep it to yourself. Now you're saying that the existing definition of marriage doesn't suit you? How so?

Oooh! You're still on that weird tangent that someone ELSE'S marriage affects how you live yours. That's so weird, don't you think?

There's a definition of marriage, you have it... well perhaps you will one day... and it does something for you. To you, your marriage would include childbearing... well, someone else would bear your child since you can't... so siring a child... well, wait, you haven't actually established that you can. So maybe your marriage will mean children biologic to you, maybe not, or maybe no children. JUST LIKE A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

And then there's the how-we-have-sex... wait, what? You say there is NOTHING in the existing marriage law that governs how people achieve orgasm? Nothing at all in any way even a hint? At all?


So what part of this law doesn't suit you again? It's so quaint how you keep saying that someone else's use of the law somehow affects your use of it. Grow up. People use your currency to buy prostitutes, too.

There are basically 2 solutions for accommodating the practical legal needs of homosexuals.

1. Redefine the existing legal and cultural institution of marriage

2. Create a new legal and cultural institution for homosexual partnerships

Oh, so many more than 2. But the most important is that without redefining anything, you agree that marriage is between any two consenting adults eligible to marry. Most of the laws said that in the first place until fundies tried to redefine it as "one man, one woman" in order to later try to prevent someone else from using the original definition.

Neither one is better than the other from a practical point of view.

They both achieve the same outcome.

LOL, we tried that "separate-but-equal" thing in the US. I can get you some links to how that turned out. Hint: it did not achieve the same outcome.

One of the reasons that the former is the preferred option by some is that it gives a chance for the homosexual lobby to cause offence to the traditional lobby as well as achieve a practical result. If all they wanted was a practical result then the option that gets a result and also avoids causing offence to the majority would be the better option.

You keep making the mistake of calling your position a majority position. it isn't. You are the minority. The haters are the minority. Becoming more and more tiny as the years go by.


and as Keith said, millions of them aren't even aware that you are bothered. It's cute that you think they actually care at all about you. They don't.

This is not simply about a practical result though, it is about political point-scoring and a positive desire to cause offence to people with a traditional view of marriage since the homosexual lobby senses the opportunity for such offence to be caused without reprisal in the current warped political climate.

So this is very funny. Can you support it with any evidence? If you have no evidence, doesn't this turn out to be a lie by you intended to malign homosexuals?

Certain political groups wants to redefine existing marriage to embrace homosexual partnerships. This is an attempt to position homosexual partnerships as equal to heterosexual partnerships with no difference. This reminds me of feminist movements of the 1970s who tried to insist that there was zero difference between men and women. While this may resonate politically with the pro-homosexual lobby the problem is that it is simply not true. They are not the same; they are different.

Lol, you really think the 70s feminist movement was to claim that men and women are exactly the same? Hello!! No two PEOPLE are exactly the same. And do you really think YOU are "more like" my husband than I am? Bwaaahaaahaaa!!!!

No, dude. The movement was about getting equal legal protection for all of life's exigencies. IF we do the same job, THEN the pay should be the same. IF we rent the same houses, THEN the rent should be the same.


Question - how old are you?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You know, mojo's beginning to remind me of a Latin teacher I knew who hated slang.

The English language is vital, alive, constantly used and constantly changing. The Latin he taught was a dead language, a snapshot of a culture that is no longer inhabited by anyone. There was no term for email, and a word's meaning was the meaning, or meanings, and the verbs had specific conjugational forms.

To him, English should be that way. There was a day that he, himself, felt he was qualified to converse in English, that he knew what words meant, so everything should stop for his personal ease. That way, he'd never be caught up by innuendo he didn't understand (he was asked if he preferred the sausage or the taco, referring to his preferred gender for sexual congress. He was completely unaware of that particular facet of the choices offered, and somehow made no notice of all the snickering in class, and he proudly and honestly said he found tacos too confusing as you never really know what's in there, and bits fall out and it's a mess to eat and his class tittered for the next three months).

Well, it's not a dead language and he doesn't own it, either. So things change. Keep up or get out of the way.
It's not a dead culture, neither.