Gay marriage in Australia

[mojorising]

Said the slavers.

Which is the main point. If someone wants to start a new tradition, the question of "why do we still have the existing tradition?" is the most important question. If it can't be defended by anything beyond "Because it's an existing tradition" then it's probably time to dump the existing tradition as something that's either become irrelevant over time or that should never have become a tradition in the first place.

But the tradition is not arbitrary, it is based on something real and tangible which is the difference between the sexes.

Marriage is traditionally defined as the ceremonial pair-bonding of a man and a woman. There is no need to dismantle a tradition which many people value when a new arrangement can easily be made to accommodate a group who has recently been included in the circle of empathy.

We can offer new traditions and new laws for them.

Many heterosexual people are not all that keen on homosexuality even though they are prepared to accept that it goes on and the individuals concerned do not deserve to be stigmatised and made to suffer.

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.

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? 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'.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But the tradition is not arbitrary, it is based on something real and tangible which is the difference between the sexes.

Before, you said it was based on the pair bonding to raise children. Have you given up on that arbitrary claim?

Marriage is traditionally defined as the ceremonial pair-bonding of a man and a woman. There is no need to dismantle a tradition which many people value when a new arrangement can easily be made to accommodate a group who has recently been included in the circle of empathy.

Not empathy.
You're lying.
YOU want a new tradition so you can keep it discrete from marriage, to keep gays from adopting kids to raise as a bonded pair.

Stop pretending otherewise.

We can offer new traditions and new laws for them.

But there's no reasonable justification for going to that much effort when we can just add them to existing, nonredundant precedent.

Many heterosexual people are not all that keen on homosexuality

So you've scaled back from 'most' heteros are disgusted, i see.

In this kind of situation the most sensible solution is to create new traditions and laws to accommodate the newly accepted group.

Then they're not really 'accepted,' are they, if they're still kept apart?

This avoids friction with the existing majority while facilitating the lives of the new group with all their practical needs.

But you EXPRESSLY want to deny them some of their needs and their equality.
So, no, this CREATES friction unnecessarily.

2 men getting together is significantly different to a man and a woman.

And any fucking time you want to list the 'significant' differences, go right ahead.

I'm going tohave to conclude at this point that you fucking cannot.

There are valid arguments on both sides regarding whether to create new traditions/laws or change existing ones.

Then maybe you should offer a valid argument for your side, any time now.

Has a single one of you got the balls to admit that there is valid case in favour of the former?

You haven't offered one, so it's not a matter of how big my balls are.

I HAVE admitted that i do find that my response to the idea of gay sex is a phobic one. Just like when i face heights or spiders or the wide open horizon.

I have also admitted that i don't think my reaction has a fucking thing to do with granting or withholding rights from other people.

No you don't because you are beholden to the new conformism of 'equality'.

Your diagnosis is a little fucking wrong.

It is a thought-crime to point out differences between people even when they are substantial and obvious

You haven't pointed out the differnces. You claim they exist.
YOu claim they're significant.
Over and over and over....

But you haven't actually put your balls on the table and listed the significant differences that should have an effect on the legal rights of gay men and women.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Which is the main point. If someone wants to start a new tradition, the question of "why do we still have the existing tradition?" is the most important question. If it can't be defended by anything beyond "Because it's an existing tradition" then it's probably time to dump the existing tradition as something that's either become irrelevant over time or that should never have become a tradition in the first place.

But the tradition is not arbitrary, it is based on something real and tangible which is the difference between the sexes.

Any two people not exactly the same person is also based on something real and tangible. I don´t think that expression implies what you think it implies.

Marriage is traditionally defined as the ceremonial pair-bonding of a man and a woman. There is no need to dismantle a tradition which many people value when a new arrangement can easily be made to accommodate a group who has recently been included in the circle of empathy.

Polygamy. Traditional marriages in almost all of history have traditionally been polygamous. So if your call for back to traditions doesn´t call for polygamy you are just talking shit IMHO.

We can offer new traditions and new laws for them.

Gays are already getting married and have been for thousands of years. That´s not the issue here. The issue here is whether or not they get the legal recognition and the legal protection that straights get.

Many heterosexual people are not all that keen on homosexuality even though they are prepared to accept that it goes on and the individuals concerned do not deserve to be stigmatised and made to suffer.

I´not to keen on some of the stuff some people eat. Still doesn´t bother me because it´s none of my business.

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.

What friction? I´m willing to bet that you won´t even notice the law change.

2 men getting together is significantly different to a man and a woman.

How? And more specifically what´s the difference between a couple of fags you won´t get to sleep with and a couple of straights you won´t get to sleep with? What possible difference can it be?

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? 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'.

This is the ramblings of a mad-man. How is equality a bad thing?

 

[mojorising]

Any two people not exactly the same person is also based on something real and tangible. I don´t think that expression implies what you think it implies.

Irrelevant. I am pointing out a significant difference that is obvious for even a child to see.

Polygamy. Traditional marriages in almost all of history have traditionally been polygamous. So if your call for back to traditions doesn´t call for polygamy you are just talking shit IMHO

Rubbish. In western history within the last thousand years marriage is almost exclusively between a man and a woman. Polygamy is different argument anyway. It is still between a man and a woman except the man can have more than one marriage.

Gays are already getting married and have been for thousands of years.

Rubbish. Homosexuals were beaten and imprisoned until recently for attempting to engage in their activities.

I´not to keen on some of the stuff some people eat. Still doesn´t bother me because it´s none of my business.

Irrelevant. This is about a long standing tradition being redefined which is offensive to many people who are willing to accept homosexuality but not willing to have their cultural ceremonies redefined in some bizarre PC exercise.

This is the ramblings of a mad-man. How is equality a bad thing?

Equality has become a worn out cliché that is over-used in the 21st century to try and apply a patina of moral correctness to any flaky political ambition.

 

[dystopian]

Sigh.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Irrelevant. I am pointing out a significant difference that is obvious for even a child to see. .

No, you're not.
You're asserting that there are differences THAT HAVE or should have LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. You haven't pointed any out.

Which makes most of your participation in this thread:
Irrelevant.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This is the ramblings of a mad-man. How is equality a bad thing?

Equality has become a worn out cliché that is over-used in the 21st century to try and apply a patina of moral correctness to any flaky political ambition.

So... aside from your characterization of the motivation behind a quest for equality, the question remains.

Can you explain why equality would be a bad thing?

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

I am married. I've been married for, holy crap, twenty eight years on the day after tomorrow. I've been in a state that's allowed gay marriage for eleven of those years and have noted no change.
I've been in a country that's allowed gay marriage for a week, and have noticed no impacts on my marriage.


What the fucking Christ on a velociraptor is the PROBLEM with marriage equality? For society, that is, not your personal heebie jeebies.

 

[Jarhyn]

Irrelevant. I am pointing out a significant difference that is obvious for even a child to see.

Polygamy. Traditional marriages in almost all of history have traditionally been polygamous. So if your call for back to traditions doesn´t call for polygamy you are just talking shit IMHO

Rubbish. In western history within the last thousand years marriage is almost exclusively between a man and a woman. Polygamy is different argument anyway. It is still between a man and a woman except the man can have more than one marriage.

Gays are already getting married and have been for thousands of years.

Rubbish. Homosexuals were beaten and imprisoned until recently for attempting to engage in their activities.

I´not to keen on some of the stuff some people eat. Still doesn´t bother me because it´s none of my business.

Irrelevant. This is about a long standing tradition being redefined which is offensive to many people who are willing to accept homosexuality but not willing to have their cultural ceremonies redefined in some bizarre PC exercise.

This is the ramblings of a mad-man. How is equality a bad thing?

Equality has become a worn out cliché that is over-used in the 21st century to try and apply a patina of moral correctness to any flaky political ambition.

You continually fail to establish that the differences are relevant. Two otherwise absolutely identical steel ball bearings are still different in that one ball bearing is not the other. Let us suppose one has an A anodized onto it, and the other has a B anodized onto it. They are different and any fool can tell you that and understand that they are not the same ball bearing. But they don't have any relevant differences as to their functioning as ball bearings. They are clearly different, but they are not relavantly different. You still have yet to establish that gay marriage is relavantly different from marriages we allow.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

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.

 

[Jokodo]

I´not to keen on some of the stuff some people eat. Still doesn´t bother me because it´s none of my business.

Irrelevant. This is about a long standing tradition being redefined which is offensive to many people who are willing to accept homosexuality but not willing to have their cultural ceremonies redefined in some bizarre PC exercise.

The first guy to open an Indian restaurant in Australia was very definitely redefining a long standing tradition of what pub food means. Do you figure he should have been stopped?

 

[Jayjay]

I for one think that we should acknowledge the marriage tradition for exactly what it has been for the most part of human history (and pre-history): coercion to control sexuality and reproduction. Us modern folks have somehow twisted that original purpose into some sort of weird fetish that somehow mixes with deluded concepts of love or romance.

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

 

[mojorising]

Irrelevant. This is about a long standing tradition being redefined which is offensive to many people who are willing to accept homosexuality but not willing to have their cultural ceremonies redefined in some bizarre PC exercise.

The first guy to open an Indian restaurant in Australia was very definitely redefining a long standing tradition of what pub food means. Do you figure he should have been stopped?

No because it was being sold as 'Indian Food' not 'Aussie Food'. The comparison trivialises a serious issue which is the definition of marriage.

Men and women are substantially different creatures in many respects.

Marriage is culturally defined as the pair bonding of a man and a woman.

We have now deemed that homosexuality is socially acceptable. Homosexuality 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 and understand that homosexuals cannot help their nature.

Given the above it is quite reasonable to say that homosexual pair-bondings should not be defined as the cultural equivalent to heterosexual marriages but as something which is in some ways similar to marriage but in other ways different.

The rejection of redefining marriage is being framed by the pro-homosexual lobby as a rejection of homosexuality but that is not correct. The solution being proposed is that new legal institutions be put in place to support homosexuals in their pair-bonding and that marriage be left with its traditional definition. This is a perfectly reasonable and rational solution to the issue.

I am married. I've been married for, holy crap, twenty eight years on the day after tomorrow.

Congratulations Keith and good effort.

 

[Ford]

Men and women are substantially different creatures in many respects.

They're not both human?

Marriage is culturally defined as the pair bonding of a man and a woman.

Or a man and several women. Or a man and a woman and his consorts. Or a man and his property. Or a man and the woman he was offered in a real estate transaction. Or a man and woman who were matched by their parents when they were children.


The "cultural" definition of marriage is not set it stone. Never has been.

We have now deemed that homosexuality is socially acceptable.

Not everywhere, to be sure, but it is gaining acceptance. Why is it that you want to make it unacceptable, again?

 

[Keith&Co.]

by the pro-homosexual lobby

Get this through your fucking head, Mojo.
I don't consider myself part of a pro-homosexual lobby.
I consider myself part of a pro-human lobby, and am impatiently waiting for you to give any solid goddamned reason for me to treat homosexuals as less then human.
Any reason, whatsoever, that makes sense to deny them the same rights i would reserve for myself.

You appeal to scientific evidence we don't actually have, and do not explain why that would matter.
You appeal to a long-standing tradition which isn't all that long-standing, and pretend all the historical changes to that tradition should be ignored.
You appeal to sexism, which went out of favor in the 70's.

You claim to a majority silently agrees with you, but you cannot show they exist.
You call the rest of us liars and fad-followers and wonder why none of us have the 'balls' to say your side of the argument has the slightest fucking credibility in there actually being a debate.

You're just preaching here, and not to the choir.

- - - Updated - - -

Congratulations Keith and good effort.

Thanx. Care to not ignore the rest of the post?

Equality has become a worn out cliché that is over-used in the 21st century to try and apply a patina of moral correctness to any flaky political ambition.

So... aside from your characterization of the motivation behind a quest for equality, the question remains.

Can you explain why equality would be a bad thing?

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

I am married. I've been married for, holy crap, twenty eight years on the day after tomorrow. I've been in a state that's allowed gay marriage for eleven of those years and have noted no change.
I've been in a country that's allowed gay marriage for a week, and have noticed no impacts on my marriage.


What the fucking Christ on a velociraptor is the PROBLEM with marriage equality? For society, that is, not your personal heebie jeebies.

 

[Jokodo]

The first guy to open an Indian restaurant in Australia was very definitely redefining a long standing tradition of what pub food means. Do you figure he should have been stopped?

No because it was being sold as 'Indian Food' not 'Aussie Food'. The comparison trivialises a serious issue which is the definition of marriage.

Not in any way you can show. Also, food is obviously much more important than marriage - people can go without marriage for years, only days without food, so redefining food is inherently much more serious.

Men and women are substantially different creatures in many respects.

Not in any legally relevant way.

Marriage is culturally defined as the pair bonding of a man and a woman.

Used to be. Just like pub food used to be defined as pork pie and gravies. That is not, in and of itself, an argument that it should be that way.

 

[blastula]

This thread is why gay marriage is legal. No good argument against it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Men and women are substantially different creatures in many respects.

I have subscribed to Playboy for about 32 years.
I subscribe for the differences.
But nowhere on the centerfold or Playmate fact sheet on the back of the centerfold, have I seen any differences that would give me a reason to justify treating them differently in the eyes of the law. If one's 'turn-ons' included slightly overweight bald guys with military experience and a certain kink, _I_ would treat her differently, but still within the bounds of the same laws that protect the one whose turn-ons include busty blonde cheerleaders with pouty lips.

Marriage is culturally defined as the pair bonding of a man and a woman.

Fine, great, whatever.
Stop listening to reason and evidence to the contrary. Let's accept this little detail you're insisting on.

Now, if stipulated, WHY would that matter?
WHY can we not change the LEGAL definition of what culture has said for so long?
We took away polygamy, right? Changed the legal definition of what many cultures said marriage was.
We added a minimum age, local differences very, but still there's a legal change to what culture allowed for.
Your 1961 law took away coercion, so despite all the cartoons about shotgun weddings, those are merely cultural icons, not legally binding ceremonies.

So, why does 'culture' trump 'legal?' Why should we care?

Given the above it is quite reasonable to say

But we don't 'give' the above.
It's not a 'given' that homosexuality is an error.
It's not a 'given' that science will determine that homosexuality is an error.
It's not a 'given' that IF science determines that homosexuality is an error, that'll matter a damn to their legal rights as human beings being treated equally by other human beings.
So without the 'given,' then your conclusions are worthless.

 

[dystopian]

I have subscribed to Playboy for about 32 years.
I subscribe for the differences.

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

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have subscribed to Playboy for about 32 years.
I subscribe for the differences.

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.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

You know who else is progressive about that stuff? Free internet blogs.