Gay marriage in Australia

[mojorising]

it does if the culture discriminates against those that exhibit the trait.

The point is that homosexuality disables the individual even without any discrimination from society whereas left-handedness requires discrimination in order to be a disability.

But not with respect to homoSEXUALS.

I am proposing legal structures to support them but not marriage.

 

[atrib]

It is a poor comparison.

Left handedness does not disable the individual in any objective way. It is just a minority trait.

Homosexuality disables the individual from engaging in natural reproduction. It is very likely to be a developmental defect rather than simply a minority difference.

1. Homosexuality does not disable homosexuals from engaging in reproduction. They produce eggs and sperm just like heterosexuals, and they can reproduce just fine with members of the opposite sex. Many of them may not choose to do so, but that is no different from heterosexuals who choose not to reproduce either.

2. You are yet to demonstrate that homosexuality is a defect.

3. Many heterosexual people are not able to engage in "natural" reproduction either. They may be born sterile or impotent, or they may suffer trauma or illness that results in this condition. We do not take away the rights of individuals with reproductive disabilities to marry. Why should we take away the same right from all homosexuals whether they can physically reproduce or not?

That is not what political correctness means. It means adopting a political position motivated primarily out of a precious fear of offending a minority which is precisely the charge I am aiming at you and the political attitudes of people who want to make a fabricated assertion that homosexuality is an equally valid form of human sexual expression as heterosexuality.

It is not about political correctness. It is about equality.

It is not equally valid. It is in all likelihood a developmental defect.

1. You have no evidence to support this claim.

2. What if it is defect? Why should defective people not be treated equally under the law? Do we ban marriages between heterosexuals who cannot reproduce (are defective)?

Extending tolerance for these activities and even creating legal structures to support them are as generous as society realistically needs to be w.r.t. homosexuality.

They are human beings deserving of equal treatment. Your bigoted opinions notwithstanding.

The motivation to redefine cultural institutions which were implicitly and explicitly heterosexual in nature just so that homosexuals can have a warm fuzzy feeling is 'political correctness'.

The motivation is to treat ALL people as equals in the eyes of the law. Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The point is that homosexuality disables the individual even without any discrimination from society whereas left-handedness requires discrimination in order to be a disability.

No, mojo. We've been over that. Reproduction is not critical to the institution of marriage. It's a pointless trait to bring into the discussion. Just like handedness or hair color. Whether or not they can or will have babies, they should be allowed to marry unless there's a non-superficial reason to prevent it.

You've yet to show a non-superficial objection.

But not with respect to homoSEXUALS.

I am proposing legal structures to support them but not marriage.

Yep.
You want to keep discrimination in place.
That's what we're asking for, some fucking reason to allow this discrimination. You offer fuck-all.

 

[mojorising]

1. Homosexuality does not disable homosexuals from engaging in reproduction. They produce eggs and sperm just like heterosexuals, and they can reproduce just fine with members of the opposite sex. Many of them may not choose to do so, but that is no different from heterosexuals who choose not to reproduce either.

Argumentational pedantry.

If their sexual orientation disinclines them from engaging with the opposite sex then they are effectively reproductionally challenged (if that term works better for you than disabled).

You are yet to demonstrate that homosexuality is a defect.

It would appear to be a defect since we are a sexually reproducing life-form and homosexuality effectively renders the affected individual non-reproductive.

3. Many heterosexual people are not able to engage in "natural" reproduction either. They may be born sterile or impotent, or they may suffer trauma or illness that results in this condition. We do not take away the rights of individuals with reproductive disabilities to marry. Why should we take away the same right from all homosexuals whether they can physically reproduce or not?

We are not taking rights away. They did not have any rights to begin with. Now we are offering them a broad range of rights similar to, but not identical to, heterosexual marriage rights. This reflects the nature of homosexuality which is in some ways similar to but in many ways different to heterosexuality.

There is nothing 'unfair' about this. It is a fair offer.

Dogmatically insisting that the legal options must be indistinguishable from heterosexual marriage laws is nothing more than anal retentive political correctness. Homosexuality is obviously significantly different to heterosexuality and to pretend otherwise is just like sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la la la la la'

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Holy shit, dude. The mere fact that you consider that line of argument to be reasonable and fair is one of the most pathetic things I've seen in a while.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You are yet to demonstrate that homosexuality is a defect.

It would appear to be a defect since we are a sexually reproducing life-form and homosexuality effectively renders the affected individual non-reproductive.

Wow. When challenged to back up your opinion with anything resembling a fact, you reassert your opinion.
Maybe you should be restricted from marriage, due to be argumentably disabled?

 

[Rhea]

It is a poor comparison.

Left handedness does not disable the individual in any objective way. It is just a minority trait.

Homosexuality disables the individual from engaging in natural reproduction. It is very likely to be a developmental defect rather than simply a minority difference.

SINCE marriage currently has ABSOLUTELY NO mention of, concern for, tests regarding, or questions inquiring about fertility, it has ZERO bearing on whether homosexuals are eligible for marriage.


End of story.
Find me a marriage law that says ANYTHING about proving fertility and then you can start arguing this. Until then, you're just a voice calling for meanness.

Remember what lamenting "political correctness" means, mojo. It means, "goddamnit, why can't we just call them niggers anymore?" Politically Correct means the position that is held by the majority of the political voters. The position necessary for winning popular elections. To rail against political correctness is to rail against the overwhelming majority opinion. That's what it means.

That is not what political correctness means. It means adopting a political position motivated primarily out of a precious fear of offending a minority

no.

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a pejorative[1][2][3][4][5] term used to criticize language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. The term had only scattered usage prior to the 1990s, usually as an ironic self-description, but entered mainstream usage in the United States when conservative author Dinesh D'Souza used it to condemn what he saw as left-wing efforts to advance multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, opposition to hate speech, and changes to the content of school and university curriculums.[6] The term came to be commonly used in the United Kingdom around the same period, especially in periodicals such as the Daily Mail, a conservative tabloid that became known for the trope "political correctness gone mad."

The only thing POLITICAL concerns itself with is electability. "Politically Correct" is a perjorative meant to demean objection to those things that are actually so hateful it will keep you from getting elected. POLITICAL.

It is used EXCLUSIVELY by those who WANT to offend and feel like they are being kept from it by some entity (commonly known as the majority).

Again, it is used EXCLUSIVELY to condemn popular opinion.

As you are using it. Dear.
It is ALWAYS used as a perfect match for, "why can't we just call them nigeers any more!?" As you are using it. "Why can't we just keep out the fags anymore!? And why is everybody all mad just because I said fags!? They're perverts! Defects! I wouldn't let my kid near them! It's just (sneer) political correctness that is preventing you from agreeing with me!"

which is precisely the charge I am aiming at you and the political attitudes of people who want to make a fabricated assertion that homosexuality is an equally valid form of human sexual expression as heterosexuality.

We're not fabricating anything. It really _is_ equally valid as a human trait because there is so much more to being human than having sex. Really.

It is not equally valid. It is in all likelihood a developmental defect.

Says who? You've refused on every page to support your own personal opinion. It's a stupid thing to base laws on. You know that, right? Your personal opinion. You calling ti a "defect" is such a mean-spirited kind of flavor. What's a "defect"? One could argue that ALL OF EVOLUTION is a "defect". Some are advantageous to survival, some are not, some are neutral. Evidence shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality in 10% or less of the population (at least) is not deleterious to survival of the species.

So, "defect"? Like the first eyes were a "defect"? Or the first wings?

Meh. It is OBVIOUSLY not a barrier to species survival, so evolution does not actually care.

The motivation to redefine cultural institutions which were implicitly and explicitly heterosexual in nature just so that homosexuals can have a warm fuzzy feeling is 'political correctness'.

No, the motivation to use the current definition without excluding any humans is decent and right.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, how about this.
Mojo, we think that homosexuality is a trivial trait with respect to legal access to marriage. Same as handedness or fertility. No one is banned from marriage due to their handedness, their fertility, so their gender of preference is no reason to ban them from marriage.
If you disagree, please provide evidence that it is not trivial IN (A) WAY(S) that matter a fuck to the legal process.

Mojo, we think that traditions can change, and certainly have changed over time. And while there may be some point to preserving a tradition, adding same sex couples to marriage does not remove the tradition. You can still practice the established tradition of purchasing your bride from her father (or other male guardian), and getting a discount if she's not intact, right? Feel free to take this opportunity to detail how the addition of SSMs will deny your ability to celebrate the tradition and infringe on any of your rights, any at all.

Mojo, we think that several societies have adopted same-sex marriages and suffered no ill effects from the practice in any measurable way: culturally, socially, financially, child rearing, politically or just gol-durned living from day to day. Feel free to provide any evidence that Australian culture is significantly different from that found anywhere else in the world such that SSMs could have a significant, negative impact on that culture.

Mojo we think that if the voters surveyed are in favor of a change, then the voters are expressing their true opinion and no just cowed by people threatening to point fingers at them and call them by names. Feel free to provide any evidence that counters this understanding of the purpose and application of polling.

Mojo, we think that if there were secret legislation to allow gays to marry and play butt darts under governmental sanction, but no one ever told you, or forced you to play darts, you would notice no significant change in your life. Please provide the slightest tiny fucking bit of evidence that this is incorrect.

 

[Rhea]

And mojo, if you need more data, you can ask Keith, who is actually married and who actually lives in a state that has no bans to marriage (and hasn't for 12 years) whether his actual marriage is in any way actually damaged by the actual presence of homosexual marriage in his commonwealth midst.

 

[dystopian]

No one is banned from marriage due to their handedness,

What, you'd actually let people with hands marry?

You sicken me.

 

[cycomiko]

My girlfriend and I have ZERO desire to have children. We enjoy being around our nieces and nephews but after 2-3 days our family plans are reaffirmed. What's the defect in our situation? As far as I can tell from the previous arguments, we're defective (reproductively) and shouldn't be allowed to marry.

 

[Rhea]

My girlfriend and I have ZERO desire to have children. We enjoy being around our nieces and nephews but after 2-3 days our family plans are reaffirmed. What's the defect in our situation? As far as I can tell from the previous arguments, we're defective (reproductively) and shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Well, you're one step less defective than mojo. You have a girlfriend, so...

 

[cycomiko]

My girlfriend and I have ZERO desire to have children. We enjoy being around our nieces and nephews but after 2-3 days our family plans are reaffirmed. What's the defect in our situation? As far as I can tell from the previous arguments, we're defective (reproductively) and shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Well, you're one step less defective than mojo. You have a girlfriend, so...

Good point. And she totally lets me put my ding-dong in her hoo-ha but not for the purposes of procreation.

 

[Rhea]

Also, the 12 year old in me cannot help but continue to laugh every time mojorising posts, given the history of his moniker and teh topic of this thread. Just makes me giggle every single time. Mr mojorising has a thang about where the cocks go.

Mr. Mojo Risin
Mr. Mojo Risin is a name that singer of the Doors, Jim Morrison, made up and added to the song L.A woman.

if you unscramble "Mr. Mojo Risin", you'll get "Jim Morrison"

You also don't have to think that long to find out that he was actually referring to his own cock.
but this is okay, because it's Jim Morrison.
and Jim Morrison's cock was one of the eight wonders of the world.

Mr. Mojo Risin'
Got to keep on risin'
Risin' risin'
Come on risin' risin'

 

[atrib]

Argumentational pedantry.

If their sexual orientation disinclines them from engaging with the opposite sex then they are effectively reproductionally challenged (if that term works better for you than disabled).

What about heterosexual people who cannot have sex or unwilling to have sex or are biologically sterile? Shouldn't these "defective" people be banned from marrying as well?

Yeah, we know. You didn't respond to that part of my post because you don't have an answer to that question. You think homos are icky and should not be treated like human beings. It is based solely on your personal bigotry.

You are yet to demonstrate that homosexuality is a defect.

It would appear to be a defect since we are a sexually reproducing life-form and homosexuality effectively renders the affected individual non-reproductive.

What about bigoted people? Should they be allowed to reproduce and teach children to hate? Should someone like you be allowed to raise children?

3. Many heterosexual people are not able to engage in "natural" reproduction either. They may be born sterile or impotent, or they may suffer trauma or illness that results in this condition. We do not take away the rights of individuals with reproductive disabilities to marry. Why should we take away the same right from all homosexuals whether they can physically reproduce or not?

We are not taking rights away. They did not have any rights to begin with. Now we are offering them a broad range of rights similar to, but not identical to, heterosexual marriage rights. This reflects the nature of homosexuality which is in some ways similar to but in many ways different to heterosexuality.

No. You are offering them status as second class citizens. You are willing to tolerate them but not as equals. You are not willing to let them enjoy the rights and freedoms other citizens enjoy. Simply because you think they are icky. Simply because of your fucked up personal prejudice.

There is nothing 'unfair' about this. It is a fair offer.

There is nothing fair about your offer. And the offer is not yours to make. Why the fuck should your personal bigotry be allowed to dictate what rights homosexuals can or cannot have?

Dogmatically insisting that the legal options must be indistinguishable from heterosexual marriage laws is nothing more than anal retentive political correctness. Homosexuality is obviously significantly different to heterosexuality and to pretend otherwise is just like sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la la la la la'

It is not political correctness. It is about treating all people the same under the law. It is about lifting the law above the hateful bigotry of individuals like you. A concept that you seem unable to grasp.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What about bigoted people? Should they be allowed to reproduce and teach children to hate?

That is his big fear. That gays will raise children who will grow up and NOT see that homosexuality is so very offensive...

 

[RavenSky]

It is a poor comparison.

No. It is your entire argument that is poor.

Left handedness does not disable the individual in any objective way. It is just a minority trait.

Left handedness was a death penalty in some cases. That tends to disable an individual.

Yes, it seems ridiculous, unobjective, and beyond comprehension that any society could think that being left-handed was objectionable in any way...

Sort of like your thinking homosexuality and same-sex marriage is objectionable in any way.

Homosexuality disables the individual from engaging in natural reproduction. It is very likely to be a developmental defect rather than simply a minority difference.

Gay men and women produce sperm and eggs in about the same proportion that straight men and women do. Are you really that ignorant of biology? There is no "developmental defect" (I think you are actually pulling our collective legs, and don't really believe a word you are saying)

- - - Updated - - -

The point is that homosexuality disables the individual...

No it doesn't

I am proposing legal structures to support them but not marriage.

no you aren't

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think most fellas would feel that 2 homosexual men would be a last resort as preferred option for adopting their baby son.

I am pretty sure that a substantial majority of the male population would agree with me when I say that if their baby son had to be put up for adoption they would have a strong preference that he not be placed with 2 homosexual men

I finally realized what bothered me about these statements. I mean, besides the obvious...

I noted long ago that many of the arguments made against same-sex marriage are the exact same arguments that were made against interracial marriages a few years ago. Which included claims that such couples could not produce children.

But i have to admit, mojo, you're the first one i've seen find a modern version of 'There's nothing wrong with Negroes, I guess, but would you want your sister to marry one?'

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly, I'd pick homosexuals any day over straight parents. I don't want any child of mine growing up in a household where he lives a certain way to just fit in. In the off chance he IS gay, he won't be judged, and if he is bisexual, he'll be comfortable exploring that knowing his parents won't disapprove, and if he is straight, he'll be straight. I also don't want my kid possibly ending up in a church that teaches gay hate (or any church, but I recognize good parents may be religious, or encourage an exploration of religion for my child). So no. I wouldn't pick straight parents. I'd pick gay ones.

Oh. And gay people won't have a child 'of their own' later down the road which would distract them from the child they adopted.

 

[mojorising]

This whole issue is a bit of a beat up the way everyone is painting it.

You are getting your panties in a knot because I suggest that creating a very similar legal structure to marriage to accommodate the needs of homosexuals would be a reasonable solution.

This does not align exactly with the politically correct attitude to have towards this issue and it becomes a huge hissy fit for the homosexual political bandwagon.

From a practical perspective there is not a massive amount of difference between my solution and your solution.

The outrage seems to grow exponentially in inverse proportion to the size of difference that is suggested may exist between what is legally and culturally appropriate for homosexuals and heterosexuals. If I suggest a solution that is 99% the same but with a tiny difference then the protests will reach seismic crescendo proportions.

The whole debate seems to be primarily emotional rather than logical.

Just an oblique observation on the arc of the thread. Nothing really to add to what has been said - although it seems a shame to let it run out of impetus on the home straight to 1000 posts.