Gay marriage in Australia

[Keith&Co.]

When dogs have the right to consent in legal contracts, sure. Other than that, probably not.

What gives you the right to impose legal constraints on the definition of marriage?

It's not me, mojo. It's a societal standard. A legal one, not a mythical 'traditional' one.

And it's the basis of 'contracts,' not marriage. Marriage is legally a partnership, just one with specific assumptions incorporated.

If the guy loves his dog then surely love transcends petty notions of legality?

Plenty of people HAVE had dog-human weddings. I pointed this out about the time you started to chant about the traditional definition of marriage as a universal cultural constant. The 'tradition' allows human-snake weddings, too. And a woman married the Eiffel Tower.
It's just not a legal wedding.

Love matters more than anything some people would say.

But most everyone here has been saying that the law matters.

Gays want a legal right to wed and have the marriage accepted by the law. This does not apply to wedding ceremonies with sex dolls, computer programs or anime characters.

Your objection mires in your unwillingness to actually engage in the real discussion.

 

[mojorising]

I don´t think that means what you think it means.

Rational vs irrational vs natural distaste.

That is the problem. Humans are animals. We are motivated emotionally, not just logically. It is natural for the average human to have an aversion to homosexuality. We can be reasonable and give them protection and rights but we are not obliged to change our traditions and pretend that these traditions did not have important cultural meanings and definitions.

It's not me, mojo. It's a societal standard. A legal one, not a mythical 'traditional' one.

Traditions are not 'mythical' Keith. Especially not when they are based upon the evolutionary heritage of a species.

Plenty of people HAVE had dog-human weddings. I pointed this out about the time you started to chant about the traditional definition of marriage as a universal cultural constant. The 'tradition' allows human-snake weddings, too. And a woman married the Eiffel Tower.
It's just not a legal wedding.

The legal definition of marriage should attempt to approximate the cultural definition. It is just common sense. That is why marrying a snake or a homosexual should not be covered under the traditional law but could be covered by an additional law.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Rational vs irrational vs natural distaste.

That is the problem. Humans are animals. We are motivated emotionally, not just logically. It is natural for the average human to have an aversion to homosexuality. We can be reasonable and give them protection and rights but we are not obliged to change our traditions and pretend that these traditions did not have important cultural meanings and definitions.

Well I have a aversion to women who don´t want to sleep with me. It should therefore be illegal. See how stupid your argument is? The focus should be on making society work with the minimum annoyance for everyone and let people who have issues with other people exercising their rights of free expression tolerate it. They may complain about it as loudly as they wish. I have no problems with people being against gay marriage or finding it distasteful. People are different. and I respect that opinion. The point where I say stop is when peoples ickyness gets translated into law. Then it is bad. That is what I´m against. Feel free to define marriage anyway you please. You make make a point of refusing to refer to gay civil unions as marriages all you like. I support your right to do so. But I don´t support you when you try to make it law.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's not me, mojo. It's a societal standard. A legal one, not a mythical 'traditional' one.

Traditions are not 'mythical' Keith.

They are when you're just making them up with no real basis in fact. That's what 'mythical' means.

Especially not when they are based upon the evolutionary heritage of a species.

And that would be a mythical basis. You've shown no reason to think that our marriage traditions are based on our evolution.

Plenty of people HAVE had dog-human weddings. I pointed this out about the time you started to chant about the traditional definition of marriage as a universal cultural constant. The 'tradition' allows human-snake weddings, too. And a woman married the Eiffel Tower.
It's just not a legal wedding.

The legal definition of marriage should attempt to approximate the cultural definition.

No. Exactly BECAUSE the cultural definition has included pretty much overt slavery.
The legalities should work for what society needs now and it should accommodate change just like an other law in the land.

It is just common sense.

No, it's not.
You didn't read the 1961 Marriage Act, did you? Among other things, the LAW says that a marriage is void if anyone were coerced into the marriage.
This would include the 'tradition' of a shotgun wedding.

That is why marrying a snake or a homosexual should not be covered under the traditional law but could be covered by an additional law.

But they ARE covered under the law.
The law says no.
For snakes, it's because they're not legal citizens.
For gays, it's because of no really good reason that stands up to scrutiny....

If snakes suddenly start to talk and can understand contracts, the law could be changed.
If no one offers a good reason to continue to discriminate, the law should be changed.

 

[Jarhyn]

Argument from tradition is a wall known informal fallacy.

If a tradition is bad for society, we should be trying to get RID of the damn thing, not bend over for it. People have all sorts of traditions that owe to 'natural' predelictions, be they aversive or otherwise. Examples include an aversion to people of a visually distinct tribe, a desire to injure/harm/kill those who have slighted us, the desire to sleep with many different partners despite the fact that the genitals of those people being essentially equal, and the desire to piss wherever. I thin the better solution is to develop traditions and cultural elements which allow us to defeat our 'natural' aversions when they are ethically unsound.

 

[mojorising]

The focus should be on making society work with the minimum annoyance for everyone...

But if heterosexual folk find homosexual folk annoying that is not really going to work is it (well not from your point of view).

The exact same argument has already been used against me in this same thread.

...and let people who have issues with other people exercising their rights of free expression tolerate it.

The guy who wants to marry his dog is exercising his right of free expression.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But if heterosexual folk find homosexual folk annoying that is not really going to work is it (well not from your point of view).

The exact same argument has already been used against me in this same thread.

A gay man marrying another man has zero impact on anybody else. Where´s the annoyance to anyone? That´s just going out of your way to be offended. If gay marriage offends you, then don´t attend their marriage services. Problem solved for everyone.

...and let people who have issues with other people exercising their rights of free expression tolerate it.

The guy who wants to marry his dog is exercising his right of free expression.

I think you´re confusing me with Keith. I don´t have a problem with people marrying pets.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But if heterosexual folk find homosexual folk annoying that is not really going to work is it (well not from your point of view).

Do you have an actual example of it 'not working?' My state has had SSM for about 10 years, IIRC. It appears to 'work.'

...and let people who have issues with other people exercising their rights of free expression tolerate it.

The guy who wants to marry his dog is exercising his right of free expression.

And he can express it all he wants. He can marry her in any ceremony he wants, inviting al lwho are willing to attend.
As long as he doesn't try to give his dog power of attorney...

- - - Updated - - -

I think you´re confusing me with Keith. I don´t have a problem with people marrying pets.

Oh, he's just discovered the Slippery Slope fallacy and wants to use it up before it expires.

 

[mojorising]

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

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

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

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

It's just that, if it was 'rational,' you'd be able to recreate the chain of rational thought.
Without having to invoke fantasy and IOUs for scientific evidence and pretending that everyone shares your emotions on the issue or calling the greatest number of your opponents liars.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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

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

And other people are annoyed by interracial marriages for reasons that they consider to be valid. Their annoyance isn't a reason to deny equal rights to other people anymore that yours are.

Your selfish desire to have other people alter their lives to satisfy your wants and needs as opposed to considering their own wants and needs is devoid of rationality and based only on bigotry and hatred, regardless of what post hoc rationalizations you try to come up with to try and make it look like there's a non-bigotted reasoning behind your position. You're using bad science and bad logic to try and justify an untenable position.

Your reasoning is pathetic and the world is becoming a better place now that people like you are going the way of the guys who burny crosses on black people's lawns.

 

[mojorising]

And other people are annoyed by interracial marriages for reasons that they consider to be valid. Their annoyance isn't a reason to deny equal rights to other people anymore that yours are.

Just beacuse one previously distrusted type of marriage has been demonstrated scientifically to be substantially absent of rationality it does not follow that all other distrusted forms of marriage will also be shown to be so.

Homosexual behaviour is substantially different to heterosexual behaviour which is not analogous with the surface appearance difference of race.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And other people are annoyed by interracial marriages for reasons that they consider to be valid. Their annoyance isn't a reason to deny equal rights to other people anymore that yours are.

Just beacuse one previously distrusted type of marriage has been demonstrated scientifically to be substantially absent of rationality it does not follow that all other distrusted forms of marriage will also be shown to be so.

Homosexual behaviour is substantially different to heterosexual behaviour which is not analogous with the surface appearance difference of race.

Agreed to the first part. You have, however, failed as miserably at trying to show this as everyone else who's tried it has.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Homosexual behaviour is substantially different to heterosexual behaviour which is not analogous with the surface appearance difference of race.

But discrimination based solely on people being 'different' is substantially the same.
And substantially stupid.

So it's a perfect analogy, mojo.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Homosexual behaviour is substantially different to heterosexual behaviour which is not analogous with the surface appearance difference of race.

But discrimination based solely on people being 'different' is substantially the same.
And substantially stupid.

So it's a perfect analogy, mojo.

There is a reason that the anti-gay marriage rants are taken word-for-word from the anti-interracial marriage rants from a century earlier.

 

[Jokodo]

"I think the law should support them as best as is possible and-- WOAW I DIDN'T ACTUALLY MEAN THAT!"

All I am advocating is a voice for the middle ground, the silent majority.<snip>

By "middle ground", you mean 'oppress them in any way we can think of, just don't shoot them on sight'.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But discrimination based solely on people being 'different' is substantially the same.
And substantially stupid.

So it's a perfect analogy, mojo.

There is a reason that the anti-gay marriage rants are taken word-for-word from the anti-interracial marriage rants from a century earlier.

Yeah, I've noticed that.
Including claims that such pairing can't produce children. Wasn't true then, didn't matter then, wasn't the result of rationality then....

 

[Tom Sawyer]

All I am advocating is a voice for the middle ground, the silent majority.<snip>

By "middle ground", you mean 'oppress them in any way we can think of, just don't shoot them on sight'.

Ya, considering blacks to be 3/5th of a person was the "middle ground" compromise. That doesn't make it somehow rational or decent simply because it's better than a possible alternative.

 

[mojorising]

Homosexual behaviour is substantially different to heterosexual behaviour which is not analogous with the surface appearance difference of race.

But discrimination based solely on people being 'different' is substantially the same.
And substantially stupid.

So it's a perfect analogy, mojo.

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

Racial difference is literally skin deep.

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

 

[Jokodo]

That is ridiculous. Marriage is a cultural institution shared by society. If it can be defined any way anybody wants to suit them at any time then it doesn't mean anything.

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

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