Gay marriage in Australia

[mojorising]

You feel perfectly comfortable with discriminating against a large group of people who just want to be treated the same as anyone else

They are a very small (but very vocal) group at only 2% of the population.

Moving the goalpost now.

It is not moving the goalposts. The argument is only about whether marriage is between a man and a woman or between any 2 people. Most historical marriage definitions are intended as being for life but some might not have been but all were heterosexual.

at no point did you allow for the possibility of it being between a man and thirty women

That is 30 marriages not 1 marriage.

then there is no real justification to your claims against gay marriage

polygamy vs monogamy is a different and unrelated argument. A polygamists 30 marriages are still marriages if they are each to a woman.

The race comparison is not valid. There is no substantial difference between peoples emotional and cognitive abilities under the skin. There is a clear and obvious difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Marriage is *not* the "basis" of the family unit.

Yes it is. Both biologically, through sex, and culturally, through marriage.

The race card does work here. People have objected to interracial marriages because it violated God's will

But my argument against the changing of the definition of marriage has nothing to do with God. I am an anti-theist. I believe in the value of cultural tradition. The historical definition of marriage throughout history up until now has been a binding together of a man and a woman. I think trying to pretend otherwise is a bit silly.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is not moving the goalposts. The argument is only about whether marriage is between a man and a woman or between any 2 people. Most historical marriage definitions are intended as being for life but some might not have been but all were heterosexual.

Nope.
Not 'all.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

 

[mojorising]

Hey Keith,

Yes I know there is some recorded instances of recognised homosexual unions throughout history but what percentage would you say that we are taking about here - as a fraction of all recognised marriages including heterosexual marriages?

It really has to be a very tiny number with many zeros between the . and the 1 .

If you agree with this estimate then I would have to argue that marriage is a heterosexual cultural tradition.

Then I would argue that tradition has value and should not be overturned on the whim of this year's political fashion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hey Keith,

Yes I know there is some recorded instances of recognised homosexual unions throughout history but what percentage would you say that we are taking about here - as a fraction of all recognised marriages including heterosexual marriages?

What difference does it make? This 'all cultures think it's heterosexual' stance is just wrong. So why would the number matter?
And even if it wasn't, that's not a good reason to not change the laws, because it's discriminating against citizens.

If you agree with this estimate then I would have to argue that marriage is a heterosexual cultural tradition.

You can argue it all you like. At what point did you establish that your argument means bupkes?

Seriously, has anyone ELSE given up on equality simply because 'tradition' was to be respected?
Do you have any examples of this happening any other time?

Then I would argue that tradition has value and should not be overturned on the whim of this year's political fashion.

Whim?
How long do you think we've had homosexuals?
How long do you think they've wanted to be able to celebrate their unions and be recognized by the state, by society, as THE SPOUSE of their loved one?

 

[mojorising]

because it's discriminating against citizens.

The literal meaning of discriminate means to to make a distinction between. Do I make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual partnerships? Yes I do because they are different.

I am fully supportive of gays being allowed to have civil unions for legal purposes and to have their rights to associate upheld since we are an empathetic and inclusive society nowadays.

I am not in favour of homosexuality being equated with heterosexuality. They are not the same. They are very different.

Trying to artificially tack some children on through adoption or surrogacy to give it more of a surface appearance of 'marriage' does not actually make it 'marriage' in the traditional sense.

I also think children should be raised in the traditional family environment by a man and a woman, although that is a different argument.

 

[dystopian]

They are a very small (but very vocal) group at only 2% of the population.

Again you pull a number out of your ass that simply isn't accurate. There's a few different estimations of how much of the population is gay/bisexual... but NONE of these estimates are as low as 2%. The average estimate is around 8-10% of the population... which is a large number. Some estimates actually go much higher than that. Of course, even 2% is hardly "very small". In the US, for instance, 2% would be 6,5 million people.

It is not moving the goalposts. The argument is only about whether marriage is between a man and a woman or between any 2 people. Most historical marriage definitions are intended as being for life but some might not have been but all were heterosexual.

Except that they weren't. Here, you state with authority that *all* of them were heterosexual. When someone else points out that that is false; you declare that most of them were. That *is* moving the goalpost.

That is 30 marriages not 1 marriage.

Actually, that really depends on the culture and law, doesn't it? Under plenty of jurisdictions that might well have been considered a single marriage. You do not get to dictate that it represents thirty separate marriages. Furthermore, even if it were 30 marriages instead of 1, your argument is defeated all the same since your definition of marriage throughout this thread has been a "lifelong partnership between a man and a woman"; the cultural foundation of which you claim is self-evidently found in heterosexual pair bonding of humans. Cultures allowing a man to engage in 30 marriages prove those foundations to be false and very much *not* self-evident.

The race comparison is not valid. There is no substantial difference between peoples emotional and cognitive abilities under the skin. There is a clear and obvious difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Hahaha. No. There is absolutely no clear and obvious difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Sure, if you imagine that heterosexual relationships revolve around the production of offspring, you might think there's some fundamental difference... but others have already pointed out the problems with this sort of thinking (ie; infertile men/women). Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are formed for the exact same reasons; feelings of affection. And in this sense, there is absolutely no difference between them. Gay and straight people have the exact same set of emotions and the exact same relationship interplay. The differences between these relationships are *superficial*. Black people are 'different' in that they have a different skin color; gay couples are different in that sex works slightly differently... these are not important differences.

The fact that you think these differences are somehow important and relevant enough to serve as an argument against equality is what makes you a bigot.

Yes it is. Both biologically, through sex,

Except one can have sex outside of marriage. I'm sure you're aware of this.

and culturally, through marriage.

... do you understand the concept of circular reasoning?

The 'family unit' as you understand it is a cultural entity in the first place (and one not shared by tribal cultures). Supporting a cultural idea by appealing to another cultural idea is circular.

But my argument against the changing of the definition of marriage has nothing to do with God. I am an anti-theist.

Irrelevant; the argument doesn't change just because you use cultural supremacy instead of an appeal to god to argue against equality. If anything, it strengthens it. At least the theists have (ostensibly) a reason beyond merely "this is how it's always been" for their bigotry.

I believe in the value of cultural tradition. The historical definition of marriage throughout history up until now has been a binding together of a man and a woman. I think trying to pretend otherwise is a bit silly.

And we think pretending you're anything but a bigot is a bit silly. Funny how that works, innit?

 

[dystopian]

because it's discriminating against citizens.

The literal meaning of discriminate means to to make a distinction between. Do I make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual partnerships? Yes I do because they are different.

...wow. You're not even hiding the fact you're a bigot anymore.

"It's totally cool guys, I can discriminate against people because to discriminate means to make a distinction between people... and the people I'm discriminating are different!"

I am fully supportive of gays being allowed to have civil unions for legal purposes and to have their rights to associate upheld since we are an empathetic and inclusive society nowadays.

...

You're arguing that a minority that is asking to be treated equally... should not be treated equally; and you have the *gall* to claim you're a part of an empathic and inclusive society? Seriously, fuck off. That kind of oblivious hypocrisy isn't even funny anymore.

 

[Keith&Co.]

because it's discriminating against citizens.

The literal meaning of discriminate means to to make a distinction between. Do I make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual partnerships? Yes I do because they are different.

You just haven't shown that the difference is meaningful in this case.

I am fully supportive of gays being allowed to have civil unions for legal purposes and to have their rights to associate upheld since we are an empathetic and inclusive society nowadays.

Okay. Has anyone else ever 'settled' for something different in this way before?
If you don't have an example, i'd have to say that 'the tradition' is to seek equality, not 'separate but equal' standing.

I am not in favour of homosexuality being equated with heterosexuality. They are not the same. They are very different.

Grown ups loving each other and making it legal is not that different from grown ups loving each other and making it legal.
The distinction is in your mind.

Trying to artificially tack some children on through adoption or surrogacy to give it more of a surface appearance of 'marriage' does not actually make it 'marriage' in the traditional sense.

Sez you.
You were all about marriage being 'a family unit' and 'progeny' and ignoring that gays can do that, too, so they're not necessarily all that different. Your argument founders on facts.

I also think children should be raised in the traditional family environment by a man and a woman, although that is a different argument.

Yes, that's a different argument. But then, what is a traditional family? Do we take kids away after a divorce? No.
Do we take kids away if one parent dies or disappears in a tragic sheep-shearing catastrophe? No.
Do we take kids away if the two families are blended? Step-sisters and step-moms and step-dancers? No.
Do we take kids away if there was a mother/father unit but then one (or both) parents suddenly came out of the closet and declared that the whole thing was a lie?
No, not as a state function, although the divorce might do that....
Do we take kids away if we find out one of the parents was a different sex before the marriage?


Your views of tradition are pretty stilted. You seem fond of a nostalgic era that never really existed except on TV. And you're really, really fixated on 'the differences' between homosexuality and heterosexuality. I just don't see them as all that significant, not in the face of legal rights.

 

[mojorising]

The average estimate is around 8-10%

That cannot possibly be true.

Wikipedia says 2-5%

There is absolutely no clear and obvious difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

One is an expression of the naturally evolved sexual behaviour of the human species (and all sexually reproducing mammals) and the other is not. Sex evolved with a function. To reproduce. In order for it to work it has to be between members of the opposite sex.

Homosexuality exists and we don't know the cause of it yet but advances in science will likely reveal the causes in time. It could be a mixture of genetics, biology and environment.

I am in favour of homosexuals being supported in their reasonable pursuit of happiness and life fulfilment but I think trying to redefine one of the human species's oldest and most profound cultural institutions to accommodate them is taking things a bit far and I think everyone should stop for a moment and look a bit more objectively at what is actually being proposed.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That cannot possibly be true.

Wikipedia says 2-5%

Wiki is your counter reference?
Heh.

There is absolutely no clear and obvious difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

One is an expression of the naturally evolved sexual behaviour of the human species (and all sexually reproducing mammals) and the other is not.

Can you prove this?
Plenty of animals, mammals and others) practice homosexual behavior.
That would seem to indicate it's natural.

Sex evolved with a function. To reproduce.

Except for all those species that use it for something else.

In order for it to work it has to be between members of the opposite sex.

Kind of a circular argument. Sex is for reproduction and to 'work' it needs to be reproductive?
What if sex is 'for' bonding?
What if sex is 'for' fun?
What is sex is NOT the basis for marriage? Asexuals can marry. Gay men can marry lesbians. Old men that can't get it up can marry trophy wives.

Homosexuality exists and we don't know the cause of it yet but advances in science will likely reveal the causes in time. It could be a mixture of genetics, biology and environment.

and this impacts legal rights of humans....how?

I think everyone should stop for a moment and look a bit more objectively at what is actually being proposed.

You first.

 

[mojorising]

You just haven't shown that the difference is meaningful in this case.

Do you honestly not see any difference between 2 men in a gay partnership and a man and woman getting married? Men and women are very different creatures both physically and the way they are emotionally evolved.

Do we take kids away if one parent dies or disappears in a tragic sheep-shearing catastrophe? No.

Hey Keith,

Just to keep the thread focussed I don't think I will follow up the posts about children. It really is a whole other debate about whether gay couples should have the right to adopt/foster children.

 

[mojorising]

Plenty of animals, mammals and others) practice homosexual behavior.
That would seem to indicate it's natural.

A very small percentage of animals display some homosexual behaviour but when they do it is almost always from individuals who also display much more substantial heterosexual behaviour. The occasional homosexual behaviour seems to often be about dominance/submission and dispute resolution. It is much much more rare to encounter true homosexual pair bonding in the animal kingdom.

Sorry I am using Wikipedia as my reference again!

and this impacts legal rights of humans....how?

Well, what if one day the cause were discovered and it could be treated by some kind of embryonic DNA or environmental adjustment. This is not a far fetched scenario. The Chinese have recently begun modifying the DNA of human embryos in utero.

A heterosexual human has easier life fulfilment opportunities than a homosexual one (e.g. natural family reproduction options) so would it it not be a humane treatment?

 

[dystopian]

That cannot possibly be true.

Wikipedia says 2-5%

Wikipedia says no such thing. Wikipedia offers a range of numbers.

"According to major studies, 2% to 11% of people have had some form of same-sex sexual contact within their lifetime; this percentage rises to 16–21% when either or both same-sex attraction and behavior are reported. In a 2006 study, 20% of respondents anonymously reported some homosexual feelings, although only 2–3% identified themselves as homosexual. A 1992 study reported that 6.1% of males in Britain have had a homosexual experience, while in France the number was reported at 4.1%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Demographics

"In 2009, in a survey conducted by University of São Paulo in 10 capitals of Brazil, of the men 7.8% were gay and 2.6% were bisexual, for a total of 10.4%, and of the women 4.9% were lesbian and 1.4% were bisexual, for a total of 6.3%.[37]

Of the men of the city of Rio de Janeiro, 14.3% were gay or bisexual. Of the women of the city of Manaus, 10.2% were lesbian and bisexual.[37]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation


When using purely self-identifying labels, the numbers *tend* (but aren't always) toward the low end... people don't like identifying as gay/bisexual (undoubtedly in large part because of people like you). However, if as much as 20% (37% according to some studies even) of anonymous responders report homosexual feelings you can be damn sure the actual figure of homosexual/bisexual people isn't as low as 2%.

One is an expression of the naturally evolved sexual behaviour of the human species (and all sexually reproducing mammals) and the other is not. Sex evolved with a function. To reproduce. In order for it to work it has to be between members of the opposite sex.

Homosexuality is not unnatural. It is common across all social animals; and often serves in the role of social lubrication. It is absolutely false to claim that sex only has the purpose of reproduction. Sex is pleasurable. Sex is pleasurable even when reproduction is impossible.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why don't we have it?

Australia has overwhelming public support for equality on this issue; Of course it is very obvious in Kings Cross and Darlinghurst, but when the LNP Member for a seat in Far North Queensland is vocal in his support for marriage equality, and the Prime Minister's sister is engaged to a woman, you know that it is well past time for a change in the law.

The stumbling block, unsurprisingly, is religion; And in particular, Roman Catholicism. And in even more particular, the Prime Minister's Roman Catholicism, and the disproportionate representation RCs have in parliament.

Not only are there more self-described Catholics per capita in Parliament than in the country as a whole; They tend to be more strict in their adherence to RC dogma than the average Aussie catholic.

Why is this? It seems that in part, the electorate are more keen for their representatives to be religious devotees than they are to be devotees themselves - almost as if voting for an avowed Christian is an atonement for not being devout themselves.

Also contributing to this is the support (not only financial) and encouragement that candidates get from their churches. The lack of organised non-theist groups that can encourage or support prospective candidates, both in the community and within the structure of the major parties, leads to an over-representation of religion in the offices of power.

Personally I am in two minds as to what to do about this on a personal level. On the one hand, I have connections with the ALP, and could re-join that party, and either agitate for, or even stand myself as, a secular candidate for office; However the ALP is a hotbed Roman Catholicism, even here in Queensland (and it is far worse in NSW). The other path I am considering is to join the Secular Party of Australia, but in our effectively two party system, their influence is unlikely ever to be very significant. The absence of a State Senate in QLD means that the only real chance for an Secular Party candidate is the Federal Senate, and getting elected there is basically a lottery - for minor parties it all depends on preference deals and a fair bit of dumb luck.

The National President of the Secular Party is in Brisbane at the end of June, and I am going to go along to a meeting and sound out what the party are about - and perhaps to join up. Of course, if Christine Forster is right, the marriage equality issue will have been resolved long before the next Federal election; But there are plenty of other important issues for secularism in Australia that are worthy of my time and effort in support.

I have a theory. I was planning on moving to Australia a few years back. My company had offices in Perth and Sydney. So travelled to both. What a bunch of backward buffoons. Australians are not a particularly deep people. It´s pretty obvious that they have a very accepting, friendly and forgiving culture. That has it´s down-sides. One being that nobody will slam anybody for saying dumb shit. So dumb shit gets said all the time unchallenged. Back in Sweden political correctness is rampant and out of control. So I hate it. But the opposite extreme... Australia... It made me realize that some political correctness could be a good thing.

That´s my theory as to why Australia is against gay marriage. They´re mostly a bunch of backward homophobic and racist bastards. But friendly and pleasant to be around. I ended up not moving to Australia because of this. I just couldn´t take it. I´m not surprised in the least they´re against gay marriage.

 

[dystopian]

Do you honestly not see any difference between 2 men in a gay partnership and a man and woman getting married?

No.

Men and women are very different creatures both physically and the way they are emotionally evolved.

Men and women are different (generally), but nowhere near as much as you seem to think. And if you think that gay relationships are somehow emotionally different you obviously don't know any gay couples.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do you honestly not see any difference between 2 men in a gay partnership and a man and woman getting married? Men and women are very different creatures both physically and the way they are emotionally evolved.

I said, differences that are meaningful in this case. I can't see not letting two men marry because then there's no one in the house, to (fill in the blank with some sort of female stereotype, perhaps about shopping, cooking or getting along with mother-in-laws).
Look at the pictures of Neil Harris, his spouse and their kids. They love each other and they're raising their kids and they seem to be happy.
What's the difference that's ENOUGH of a difference to deny them the right to do exactly that?

Do we take kids away if one parent dies or disappears in a tragic sheep-shearing catastrophe? No.

Just to keep the thread focussed I don't think I will follow up the posts about children. It really is a whole other debate about whether gay couples should have the right to adopt/foster children.

Ah-ah-ah! YOU brought up the idea that marriages are ABOUT progeny. And that cultures have a traditional 'view' of marriage/family.

But that actual fact is far more complicated than simplistic, bumper-sticker politics. The 'traditional' views are fluff and nonsense compared to historical fact.
So your argument, the one about cultures ALWAYS seeing marriages a certain way is eroded if not completely dissolved in the face of actual history. This would include the ideas of progeny.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A very small percentage of animals display some homosexual behaviour

You're big on 'percentages.' Kind of a majority rule, thing.
But that doesn't matter.
Hundreds of species display homosexual behavior. The simple fact that they do means that it's a natural trait. No woodfinch behaves this way because she's trying to make her mother sick. No dolphin does it as a political 'whim.'

That it's evolved. Which means that any argument based on heterosexuality being the only evolved sexual behavior and it being only for the purpose of reproduction, is a non-starter.

It is much much more rare to encounter true homosexual pair bonding in the animal kingdom.

Rare or common, it's a 'natural' trait if it exists at all, nu?

and this impacts legal rights of humans....how?

Well, what if one day the cause were discovered and it could be treated by some kind of embryonic DNA or environmental adjustment.

Why do you assume it needs to be 'treated?' You say you're antitheist? What if atheism is simply a failure of the brain to produce a sufficient quantity of dopamine? Would you want to be treated for your condition?
Or if religion is an overabundance of dopamine. Would you support an effort to 'treat' religiosity regardless of the desires of the religionists?

This is not a far fetched scenario.

No, and that's kinda scary.

A heterosexual human has easier life fulfilment opportunities than a homosexual one (e.g. natural family reproduction options) so would it it not be a humane treatment?

Considering the number of unwanted pregnancies in the world, wouldn't it make more sense to turn everyone gay in utero? Then only the people who really, really want kids will go to the effort and expense of having kids. Wouldn't that be more 'humane' for the entire planet, with our overpopulation and dwindling resources and all that?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do you honestly not see any difference between 2 men in a gay partnership and a man and woman getting married? Men and women are very different creatures both physically and the way they are emotionally evolved.

Who gives a fuck? Why not let people sort it out themselves? If gay marriage is such a bane on humanity why not let the fags get married and find it out for themselves? This is a problem, if it is a problem, that will sort itself out all by itself. No need to meddle. Only a massive cunt would try to police gays telling them what they can and can´t do. My two cents.

 

[dystopian]

Only a massive cunt would try to police gays telling them what they can and can´t do. My two cents.

Sorry, human decency and reason has caused hyperinflation, your 2 cents are now worth approximately two TRILLION dollars.

 

[mojorising]

Dystopian:- In a 2006 study, 20% of respondents anonymously reported some homosexual feelings, although only 2–3% identified themselves as homosexual.

2-3% identify as homosexual in an anonymous poll. Pretty much in line with my numbers.

Keth:- Look at the pictures of Neil Harris, his spouse and their kids. They love each other and they're raising their kids and they seem to be happy.
What's the difference that's ENOUGH of a difference to deny them the right to do exactly that?

I don't think they should be allowed to have kids but that is a different argument. We can do that one in this thread too if you want but I think it will get a bit cluttered.

Dystopian:- The simple fact that they do means that it's a natural trait.

Downs syndrome is also a natural trait but it is not considered correct and nobody would flinch at the idea of treating it to correct it in utero. Just because something appears recurrently does not make it a good or natural or correct thing.

Dystopian:- What if atheism is simply a failure of the brain to produce a sufficient quantity of dopamine? Would you want to be treated for your condition?

Yes I would, if God really exists and a brain chemical imbalance means I can't see him, but I doubt that this is the case.