Gay marriage in Australia

[Jokodo]

I can only reference my own experience in this regard and I have never heard a homosexual union referred to as a marriage by anyone other than an individual actively engaged in the political promulgation of the concept of homosexual marriage; but then maybe I don't move in the same social circles as you.

Well, since you insinuation that anyone who doesn't share your distaste and wants to cast it into laws proscribing active discrimination is "actively engaged in the political promulgation of the concept of homosexual marriage", this is a circular argument, isn't it?

 

[mojorising]

1. The recent referendum on same-sex marriage in Ireland. The "yes" vote won by a 62-38 margin. The debate seemed to be on whether to legally allow gay people to marry, not whether to allow gay people to have their relationships legally called "marriage" even if they weren't. Absent some widespread error (which you may want to argue for), it appears that the vast majority of the Irish voters use "marriage" in a way that includes same-sex relationships.

2. Generally, the language of mainstream media in the US - not partisan outlets, or clearly right-wing or left-wing outlets -, the UK, and Canada, and apparently Australia.

3. Anonymous opinion polls in all of those countries, in which there is from a majority to a vast majority supporting same-sex marriage. Again, it seems people aren't saying that they support legally calling some relationships that aren't marriages "marriage"; rather, they support allowing same-sex couples to get married. If it were only about legal benefits, you would expect support for similar same-sex unions, but not for same-sex marriage. That is not what polls show.

You are really splitting the finest semantic hairs here. In each of these cases the use of the word marriage was not volunteered spontaneously by the subject. It was offered as an pre-defined interpretation. It could even be said that this issue renders the poll invalid since it subtly implies conceptually to the voter that marriage 'can' apply to homosexuals when really that is the question that should be left open to the voter to decide.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

1. The recent referendum on same-sex marriage in Ireland. The "yes" vote won by a 62-38 margin. The debate seemed to be on whether to legally allow gay people to marry, not whether to allow gay people to have their relationships legally called "marriage" even if they weren't. Absent some widespread error (which you may want to argue for), it appears that the vast majority of the Irish voters use "marriage" in a way that includes same-sex relationships.

2. Generally, the language of mainstream media in the US - not partisan outlets, or clearly right-wing or left-wing outlets -, the UK, and Canada, and apparently Australia.

3. Anonymous opinion polls in all of those countries, in which there is from a majority to a vast majority supporting same-sex marriage. Again, it seems people aren't saying that they support legally calling some relationships that aren't marriages "marriage"; rather, they support allowing same-sex couples to get married. If it were only about legal benefits, you would expect support for similar same-sex unions, but not for same-sex marriage. That is not what polls show.

You are really splitting the finest semantic hairs here. In each of these cases the use of the word marriage was not volunteered spontaneously by the subject. It was offered as an pre-defined interpretation. .

Yes, but when subjects are not disposed to call same-sex relationships "marriage", they usually oppose using the term legally.

It could even be said that this issue renders the poll invalid since it subtly implies conceptually to the voter that marriage 'can' apply to homosexuals when really that is the question that should be left open to the voter to decide

But the voter can of course decide otherwise if she uses the word "marriage" in a different way, and vote against.

But if you think that's not how they use the word "marriage", I would like to ask you the questions I mentioned in my previous post: Do you think that the people who voted for same-sex marriage in Ireland (or those who reply to the polls in question, etc.), do not call legal same-sex marriages "marriage"?Further, do you think they wouldn't have called a same-sex marriage celebrated in Canada but not yet legal in Ireland "marriage"?
It seems far more likely that they would have said they supported their marriage to be recognized in Ireland.

In addition to that, I'll point out that most media outlets in the US (and the UK, and Canada, etc.): from news programs to TV shows and movies, the word "marriage" seems to be regularly applied to same-sex couples who are legally married. The same goes for on-like sources like Wikipedia (e.g., one of the same links I posted earlier works here as well).
You can say that they're all biased, but that's actually native speakers using the word "marriage" and reaching probably most of the population (when you combine the sources). When you put all of the pieces of evidence together, the view that most people use the word "marriage" assuming heterosexual marriage appears quite improbable.

 

[mojorising]

^I think you are chasing irrelevantly nuanced interpretations and abstract analysis of language and interpretation to the nth degree to try and claim some impossibly obscure semantic victory that is almost entirely subjective and illusory and of no practical consequence to the the real world.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

^ I think that's partly dismissive without counterargument, and partly just ad-hominem.

But the arguments are already there, so no point in repeating them (and by the way, the reason I debate the semantic issue is that you brought it up, and it's the only issue you brought up and I replied to that you decided to debate with me)

That aside, if by "the real world" you mean what will actually happen in Australia, I don't expect that this debate will be relevant at all, so I guess you got that right. In fact, it's pretty clear where Australia is going: almost certainly, sooner or later, same-sex marriage will be legalized, as the percentage of people who support it keeps growing, and eventually enough lawmakers support it as well. What could prevent that result? A massive wave of immigration from predominantly homophobic places? A sufficiently high birth rate among opponents, who convince their children?
Actually persuading people to change their minds with arguments like yours? (or like Feser's, or any of the usual variants?)

I don't see any plausible scenario in which Australia doesn't come to allow gay marriage within a few years - ten would probably be too many.

 

[mojorising]

Maybe so but I am looking at the long game in any regard.

Even if the SCOTUS passes homosexual marriage, and Australia does too, I think this is on the back of a wave of short-sighted and rationally flawed populism and there will be a social price to pay in the longer term which will ultimately result in some redress to the short term legal outcomes of the current pro-homosexual political enthusiastic excesses of the 2010s.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't think a reverse is plausible, except for the potential threat from the spread of Islam. But that would take a really long time to make an impact like that in Australia or the US.

At any rate, the arguments in this thread will not have an impact decades from now, either.

 

[Keith&Co.]

^I think you are chasing irrelevantly nuanced interpretations and abstract analysis of language and interpretation to the nth degree to try and claim some impossibly obscure semantic victory that is almost entirely subjective and illusory and of no practical consequence to the the real world.

That's hilarious, mojo, coming from you.
You want to base your discrimination on a word having had meaning longer than the word has existed. You're not shading semantic hairs, you're making semantic 'facts' up out of fairy dust and claiming they need to be upheld as a pillar of the culture.

And even if the word has a specific meaning, that's not a reason to discriminate. Words change over time. 'Gay,' for example, hasn't always meant 'men doing things that make mojo nauseous.'

- - - Updated - - -

and there will be a social price to pay in the longer term

Such as?
Either specific details of the 'price' or some sort of ongoing research that indicates to you that there's a price to pay?

Some places have had gay marriages for a while. What priced are they paying?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You know, something that's even more central to our evolution and culture and self-image would be death, wouldn't it?
We go to a lot of effort to avoid it, we fear it, we act all goobers around it, our evolution kinda requires it (new traits dominate the gene pool a lot faster if the old traits kick the bucket during the race), and most of our religions center most of their litany on how to prepare for it.

But we've redefined death quite a bit in recent years. 'Dead' is no longer a binary state, not if sufficient medically relevant technology can be brought to bear. If you fall under the ice, you're not always dead-dead until you're warm and dead.

Philosophers have long questioned, and still question when death is, what death is, what death does, and who gets to talk shit about the dead in their eulogy.

Death affects everyone and will affect each of us in our time.

So...if something as central to our collective identity can be a fluid concept, how in the hell does ONE of the things SOME people do together get to be enshrined as a concept that cannot be updated or expanded or slightly changed?

 

[Rhea]

Mojo - you're a tiny minority. Society will show you. There's a tsunami of change finally reaching shore here.


And there'll be no "redress" any more than there was for women being allowed to wear pants, slaves being freed, Native Americans getting their children back, women no longer denied property ownership, left-handed people being allowed to remain left hand using, or Irish American denied job.

It's a good change. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality - NOTHING. It's as natural as breathing and probably the best thing going for the overpopulation of this planet to promote relationships where all children are planned and wanted if they are had at all.


Wouldn't it be ironic if science discovered that the _reason_ homosexuality occurs and increases in a population is a biological reaction to overpopulation? That it promotes the energetic and interactive participation in a population sans additional procreation? That it end up being a way that populations survive better while reducing numbers?

That'd really stick in your craw, wouldn't it. That all those frenetic breeders actually _create_ the triggers for homosexuality to occur and that homosexuality ends up keeping civilization sane in the face of resource pressures?

But in the end, mojo - you're wrong. And the way we know you're wrong is the enormous tide of change that your arguments do not divert.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wouldn't it be ironic if science discovered that the _reason_ homosexuality occurs and increases in a population is a biological reaction to overpopulation? That it promotes the energetic and interactive participation in a population sans additional procreation? That it end up being a way that populations survive better while reducing numbers?

He's going to dismissively say you're being fanciful. Though you have exactly as much evidence as HE has that it's harmful or a disease...

 

[mojorising]

But in the end, mojo - you're wrong. And the way we know you're wrong is the enormous tide of change that your arguments do not divert.

Just because something is riding a wave of frothing populism does not make it right. Nazi-ism rode one of the biggest waves of national populism in history. Ordinary people were scared to speak out against it, much like the average person is scared to speak out against the rigid and inflexible politically conformist acceptance of homosexuality as normal behaviour.

Wouldn't it be ironic if science discovered that the _reason_ homosexuality occurs and increases in a population is a biological reaction to overpopulation? That it promotes the energetic and interactive participation in a population sans additional procreation? That it end up being a way that populations survive better while reducing numbers?

If homosexuality turns out to have some rational explanation then that would be interesting. It still would not imply that homosexual pairings should automatically be called marriage since there would be other hurdles to overcome such as accepting the change to the traditional cultural definition and also working out where homosexuality lies in relation to child adoption as these questions would still be unresolved.

But at the present we don't even yet have a rational explanation for homosexuality. It is still a mystery and equally likely to be a recurrent aberration as to have a rational explanation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Just because something is riding a wave of frothing populism does not make it right.

Nor would it make it wrong, though.
But more to the point, you've got bupkes as evidence that it's only a frothy wave of populism, and not a growing case of enlightenment.

Nazi-ism rode one of the biggest waves of national populism in history. Ordinary people were scared to speak out against it, much like the average person is scared to speak out against the rigid and inflexible politically conformist acceptance of homosexuality as normal behaviour.

Um....bullshit? When's the last time a straight was sent to a reeducation facility to cure them of their bigotry? I mean, as opposed to gay kids being sent to be 'cured' of their preference?

The RCC and the Mormons and other groups are quite vocal about the 'homosexual agenda.' And you shrug off any accusation that you claim people are scared of.
If nothing else, all your 'average person' need do is point to one of the vocal groups and say they should be heard.

The problem is after the name-calling is done, people ask for any sort of evidence to actually listen to.
And just like you, they can't come up with anything.

If homosexuality turns out to have some rational explanation then that would be interesting. It still would not imply that homosexual pairings should automatically be called marriage since there would be other hurdles to overcome such as accepting the change to the traditional cultural definition and also working out where homosexuality lies in relation to child adoption as these questions would still be unresolved.

They're already resolved, mojo.
Australian gays can adopt kids.

Now you need to come up with some sort of justification for taking the existing privilege AWAY from gays if they were to marry.
Any statistics on harm done to the kids in their care?
Any test results comparing their abuse rates to heterosexuals that just fuck their way into parenthood?
Anything?

But at the present we don't even yet have a rational explanation for homosexuality. It is still a mystery and equally likely to be a recurrent aberration as to have a rational explanation.

And that doesn't matter.
It really doesn't.
And it shouldn't.

We HAVE gays in society. We have discrimination against them.
That should be lifted, unless there's a rational, objective reason to keep it in place.

Your gut feeling is not objective.
Your fantasy about 'marriage' being sacrosanct as a word with a single definition isn't rational.

See, when i was growing up, if i said 'the back seat of the pickup,' people would have been confused because pickups only had the one bench seat. No extended cabs. I'd have had to explain what i meant.
If i said my son's getting a hysterectomy, that'd require explanation because the gender and the procedure are not compatible.
If i talk about the time i parachuted from my submarine, they'll need a drawing.

However.

Right now, if i say my son is getting married, people will have some expectations.
If i say my gay son is getting married, they have slightly altered expectations (POSSIBLY no wedding dress, some difficulty getting the figures for the top of the cake, how do the ushers ask people if they're on the groom's or the groom's side....).
But they still understand every word in the sentence.

So do you.

The word's definition has flexed. You're too late.

 

[Ford]

Just because something is riding a wave of frothing populism does not make it right. Nazi-ism rode one of the biggest waves of national populism in history. Ordinary people were scared to speak out against it, much like the average person is scared to speak out against the rigid and inflexible politically conformist acceptance of homosexuality as normal behaviour.

Sorry if I'm a bit late to the party here, but if I may ask a question...


What the actual fuck?


I can't speak to Australia specifically, but here in the US, it wasn't so long ago that being a Nazi was more acceptable than being openly homosexual. In fact, around the time that Hitler was figuring out that he really had to do something about the Jews, a white christian nationalist organization (you may have seen their pointy white hoods) was actually pretty damned popular, and even after WWII they remained powerful for decades.

The gays? Not so much.


The Nazis and the Klan had more than just popularity on their side, though. They had fear. Fear that if you didn't let them alone or go along with them, you'd wind up dead.



The gays? Not so much. In fact as far as movements go, gay rights has been one of the most peaceful in history. Gays aren't out there marching into neighborhoods in force, dragging people out of their homes and beating them. Gays don't terrorize people, murder people in the name of same sex marriage, and the most impolite act engaged in is the occasional glitter bomb.


Oh, the horror!



As far as the "acceptance of homosexuality" goes, I have a serious question:


What the fuck planet are you living on? Because it sure as hell ain't Earth.



It is gaining acceptance, but I know people (from the generation before me) who didn't come out because they feared losing their job, their family, and possibly their lives. One of my best friends growing up - a mountain of a man - kept his sexuality secret out of abject fear over the consequences. Even with the growing acceptance it is still a risk to come out today. In America at least, we've only recently arrived at a place where coming out doesn't invite a beating, or being disowned by family, or fired from a job.

 

[Keith&Co.]

the occasional glitter bomb. Oh, the horror!

Hey, that is a horror.
Do you have small children?
Glitter is like the herpes of craft projects. Your kid doesn't even have to choose glitter for his project, if someone in the class gets a hold of the bottle,you're finding the stuff in your laundry for a week.

Even a burnt cross in the yard will burn out before that shit goes away.

 

[Ford]

the occasional glitter bomb. Oh, the horror!

Hey, that is a horror.
Do you have small children?

No, but I used to date a stripper, so I'm familiar with the persistence of glitter.

 

[mojorising]

It is gaining acceptance, but I know people (from the generation before me) who didn't come out because they feared losing their job, their family, and possibly their lives. One of my best friends growing up - a mountain of a man - kept his sexuality secret out of abject fear over the consequences. Even with the growing acceptance it is still a risk to come out today. In America at least, we've only recently arrived at a place where coming out doesn't invite a beating, or being disowned by family, or fired from a job.

That is fine and I am as happy as the next bloke that such excessive cruelty and oppression are a thing of the past.

However, this is the whole problem with the binary nature of attitudes towards this movement. It is assumed that you are either a pointy hat wearing Klanner or you love homosexuality and everything about it without condition and anything goes.

The problem is that there is no middle road position available to the moderate majority where we can support a political position of protection for homosexuality and legal support for homosexual unions without having all boundaries removed and have to accept things that are at the very least highly debatable.

These things being:-

1. Public street demonstration about homosexual 'pride' (it is a sexual orientation, not an achievement. Sexual orientation of any flavour is not a subject suitable for public demonstration)

2. Redefinition of the heterosexual tradition (as many people see it) of marriage between a man and a woman

3. Acceptance that homosexuals have equal priority when it comes to adopting children

4. The political assumption that homosexuality is 'natural' and an evolutionarily justified product of nature when we don't know this yet and other theories (such as recurrent aberration) are just as likely to be true

5. Acceptance that public displays of homosexual behaviour are OK when the vast majority finds them distasteful

 

[Ford]

It is gaining acceptance, but I know people (from the generation before me) who didn't come out because they feared losing their job, their family, and possibly their lives. One of my best friends growing up - a mountain of a man - kept his sexuality secret out of abject fear over the consequences. Even with the growing acceptance it is still a risk to come out today. In America at least, we've only recently arrived at a place where coming out doesn't invite a beating, or being disowned by family, or fired from a job.

That is fine and I am as happy as the next bloke that such excessive cruelty and oppression are a thing of the past.

So you say.

However, this is the whole problem with the binary nature of attitudes towards this movement. It is assumed that you are either a pointy hat wearing Klanner or you love homosexuality and everything about it without condition and anything goes.

That's quite a straw man you've erected.

The problem is that there is no middle road position available to the moderate majority where we can support a political position of protection for homosexuality and legal support for homosexual unions without having all boundaries removed and have to accept things that are at the very least highly debatable.

Oh this looks entertaining...

1. Public street demonstration about homosexual 'pride' (it is a sexual orientation, not an achievement. Sexual orientation of any flavour is not a subject suitable for public demonstration)

Again, on what planet do you live? Public street demonstrations, so long as they are peaceful, are a basic right whether or not you think they are "suitable."

2. Redefinition of the heterosexual tradition (as many people see it) of marriage between a man and a woman

Ah, the bullshit "redefinition" argument...based on the absurd premise that once gays can get married, heterosexual marriages will somehow be invalidated.

3. Acceptance that homosexuals have equal priority when it comes to adopting children

Sexual orientation by itself does not make one a good or bad parent. As such, it should not be a barrier to adoption.

4. The political assumption that homosexuality is 'natural' and an evolutionarily justified product of nature when we don't know this yet and other theories (such as recurrent aberration) are just as likely to be true

This strikes me as one of those areas where you're unwilling to concede anything, let alone agree there's a middle ground.

5. Acceptance that public displays of homosexual behaviour are OK when the vast majority finds them distasteful

What's a public display of homosexual behavior? Two guys holding hands? Two women kissing?


But of course the real problem you have is with what the "vast majority" finds distasteful, isn't it? As you've indicated, the public opinion is rapidly shifting. Two guys holding hands is becoming more acceptable to a majority. Two women kissing is no longer as distasteful as it once was. So in order to counter this shifting public opinion, what do you propose?

Should people who publicly display their sexuality - well, except if it is hetero, of course - be treated as second class citizens? You seem to be making the case for institutionalized discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

 

[mojorising]

No, but I used to date a stripper, so I'm familiar with the persistence of glitter.

I lived in Vancouver for a year (I was actually a cook in a popular gay restaurant on Davie St. - It is now closed I think - the kitchen staff were all straight except for a queer old retired drag queen who washed the dishes and the waiting staff who were all gay).

Anyway, while I lived there I had a house share and the girl in the next room was a native American who worked as a stripper at a local strip club.

She was a real party girl and made noisy overtures from time to time that she was up for some fun. Unfortunately I was a shy youth at the time and hid in my room whenever she and her friends were around. What a wasted opportunity. Probably the only chance life will throw my way to score an American Indian girl.

 

[bilby]

...
1. Public street demonstration about homosexual 'pride' (it is a sexual orientation, not an achievement. Sexual orientation of any flavour is not a subject suitable for public demonstration)

Again, on what planet do you live? Public street demonstrations, so long as they are peaceful, are a basic right whether or not you think they are "suitable."

Even in Queensland (since 1992*).










*Yes, Nineteen Ninety Two.
Prior to 1992, walking more than two abreast on a public street in Queensland could get you arrested for unlawful assembly. Whether or not you were proud of your sexuality.