Gay marriage in Australia

[mojorising]

I would just hope someone who's 'anti-theist,' which implies a rejection of traditionally held institutions

What a bunch of cobbler's bollix.

Anti-theism is an active opposition to the holding of beliefs by other people in a personal deity.

It has nothing to say about cultural traditions in general. Marriage is a cultural tradition that predates any religion active today. Religion simply usurps responsibility for life's rituals wherever it manages to infect human society which is where the confusion arises between the fantasy of religion and a rational position of anti-homosexual-marriage, which does not need to have any religious basis.

 

[RavenSky]

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites’ departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge).

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

Across the world, there were societies in pre-colonial Africa that permitted women to marry other women. These marriages typically helped widowed women who didn't want to remarry a man or return to their family or their husband's family after the husband's death, according to a 2009 research article published in the journal Global South by Marc Epprecht, the professor and head of globaldevelopment studies at Queens University in Canada.

Instead, the widow could pay a bride price and perform other rituals needed to marry another woman, Epprecht said.

The widow would then act as the husband in the relationship, and preserve her inheritance and family lineage, Epprecht said. Another man could impregnate the widow's wife, but he would have no claims on the child. Instead, the woman-woman duo would raise the child, Epprecht said.

"A central thing in African political and social thought is belonging to someone," said Thomas McClendon, a professor of history at Southwestern University in Texas. "You're someone's daughter or son, and you eventually become an ancestor when you die.

"It's important to have descendants," McClendon said. "This is a way in which women could achieve that status even if they didn't have a husband."

http://www.livescience.com/50725-same-sex-marriage-history.html

"Traditional" (as in "historical") marriage included same-sex marriage.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I would just hope someone who's 'anti-theist,' which implies a rejection of traditionally held institutions

What a bunch of cobbler's bollix.

Anti-theism is an active opposition to the holding of beliefs by other people in a personal deity.

Usually, around here, it's held to be a militant position against religions.
At least, that's the charge the theists make when they cry about anti-theist conspiracies and bias.

It has nothing to say about cultural traditions in general.

Except for being religious for the sake of being religious...

Marriage is a cultural tradition that predates any religion active today.

Oh, yeah, hehehe. You said it went back to the ice age!

Religion simply usurps responsibility for life's rituals wherever it manages to infect human society which is where the confusion arises between the fantasy of religion and a rational position of anti-homosexual-marriage,

You've yet to offer a 'rational' position against same-sex marriage. You have offered a rather sexist fantasy about 'traditional' marriages. And you've offered your conspiracy theories, speaking of bollocks.

which does not need to have any religious basis.

Need not, sure. Been waiting for something other than religion or homophobia from you for, what, a month, now?

But, hey, the discussion seems to be about you, right now, huh? That's good.

 

[mojorising]

Been waiting for something other than religion or homophobia from you for, what, a month, now?

I don't think you will find any religious quotes if you go back through my posts.

It is not homophobic to say that you regard homosexuals as different and that you are not that keen on them but you are happy for their needs to be accommodated by changes to society to make institutions and laws to accommodate them.

I think redefining marriage is excessive accomodation and I think there are better alternatives such as new laws and institutions to facilitate their needs.

You seem to to think that if somebody is not falling over themselves with enthusiasm and warm cuddly hugs for homosexuals that this is some kind of evil thought-crime to be stamped out.

It is simply rational, measured honesty. Just because you are not all that keen on homosexuals does not mean you have irrational fear of them or hatred for them. They are just a bit unpleasant from a subjective point of view but so are people with extreme forms of eczema. I don't hate them. They are just unfortunate.

I cannot make a definitive rational argument for my preferred solution just as you cannot make one for your preferred solution because both solutions are viable. I simply hold tradition to be inherently valuable and to have weight in the debate for how the situation should be resolved.

 

[Jokodo]

Been waiting for something other than religion or homophobia from you for, what, a month, now?

I don't think you will find any religious quotes if you go back through my posts.

It is not homophobic to say that you regard homosexuals as different and that you are not that keen on them but you are happy for their needs to be accommodated by changes to society to make institutions and laws to accommodate them.

No more than it is racist to say that you regard blacks as different ant that you're not that keen on them but you are happy for their needs to be accommodated by founding black colleges and universities as long as they're kept out of mainline state universities and Ivy League schools.

No more than it is sexist to say that you regard women as different and are not too keen on their political participation, but you are happy for their needs to be accommodated by founding a third chamber of parliament voted for by women only which will have veto power for certain types of laws and the privilege to nominate the vice president but without actually being involved in the legislative process.

 

[Jayjay]

The redefinition of marriage is a social folly that is cringe-worthy in its fawning political correctness. Open your eyes and recognise homosexuality for what it is: An unfortunate, but now socially acceptable, sexual orientation deserving of legal support and social acceptance within certain limits. That is all it is.

That's more or less how heterosexuality should be viewed as well.

 

[mojorising]

No more than it is racist to say that you regard blacks as different ant that you're not that keen on them but you are happy for their needs to be accommodated by founding black colleges and universities as long as they're kept out of mainline state universities and Ivy League schools.

The race analogy does not work.

That was a tribal issue where the moral code of sticking with your own kind was trumped by the recognition that racial differences are largely superficial.

This debate is about what practical steps to take to integrate homosexuals into society now that they are accepted. Homosexuals want to form legally recognised pair bonds which is understandable. The question is do we create new legal structures to support them in their endeavours or do we redefine the existing legal structure of marriage.

There is no way to demonstrate logically that one solution is right and one is wrong. They both achieve the desired outcome.

I think marriage should be left with its original definition of a bond of a man and a woman and there should be a new homosexual partnership legal structure because I believe cultural tradition has value.

You think the existing tradition should be redefined.

Neither of us is objectively right or wrong. It is just a matter of subjective opinion.

It is not analogous with the race question where it can be demonstrated that racial differences are not worthy of discrimination and the problem is fundamentally different to begin with.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Been waiting for something other than religion or homophobia from you for, what, a month, now?

I don't think you will find any religious quotes if you go back through my posts.

'Kay.

It is not homophobic to say that you regard homosexuals as different and that you are not that keen on them but you are happy for their needs to be accommodated by changes to society to make institutions and laws to accommodate them.

Your homophobia comes through quite clearly in the fact that you only ever talk about male same-sex couples, and that you never can specify the 'differences' that should have legal weight, and that you only want to accommodate them part of the way to equality.

I think redefining marriage is excessive accomodation and I think there are better alternatives such as new laws and institutions to facilitate their needs.

No, there are not.
The only reason you want alternative laws is to further the discrimination. That's not bette, that's worse.

You seem to to think that if somebody is not falling over themselves with enthusiasm and warm cuddly hugs for homosexuals that this is some kind of evil thought-crime to be stamped out.

You spend a lot of time being horribly wrong about what I think, mojo.
Many people in this thread have pointed out that you don't have to change your mind on homosexuals. You CAN go on thinking it's icky, that they're significantly but unspecifically different, that their very existence threatens you.
You just haven't come forth with compelling reasons for anyone else to support discrimination.

It is simply rational, measured honesty.

I really don't think it's rational. You've yet to describe the rational process of thinking that further discrimination is something the gays should accept.

Just because you are not all that keen on homosexuals does not mean you have irrational fear of them or hatred for them.

I HAVE an irrational fear of homosexual sex.
I just don't let it drive my politics.
And as stated many times, your homophobia comes through loud and clear.

They are just a bit unpleasant from a subjective point of view but so are people with extreme forms of eczema. I don't hate them. They are just unfortunate.

Aw. Isn't that too bad, then. You've already judged them for being wrong and being victims of a disease you cannot find any evidence for.
Just like the fundies....

I cannot make a definitive rational argument for my preferred solution just as you cannot make one for your preferred solution because both solutions are viable.

What do you mean, I haven't got a rational argument?
You just keep ignoring everyone's arguments and claiming we're faddists and blindly following the pied piper.

Separate but equal is discrimination. We've seen quite a bit of that in the USA, look it up.
Separate but not equal, as you would have it, is even more blatant discrimination.

I simply hold tradition to be inherently valuable and to have weight in the debate for how the situation should be resolved.

And holding tradition to be inherently valuable isn't rational. Whatever ancient conditions applied when a tradition started may not apply in the modern age.
You haven't shown any reason to think that the tradition deserves to be valued.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No more than it is racist to say that you regard blacks as different ant that you're not that keen on them but you are happy for their needs to be accommodated by founding black colleges and universities as long as they're kept out of mainline state universities and Ivy League schools.

The race analogy does not work.

That was a tribal issue where the moral code of sticking with your own kind was trumped by the recognition that racial differences are largely superficial.

That's really funny, coming from you.
You've claimed that samesex couples are significantly different, but cannot show that the differences are NOT superficial.

There is no way to demonstrate logically that one solution is right and one is wrong. They both achieve the desired outcome.

No, they do not both achieve the desired outcome.
Your very own agenda is to keep the outcomes different, thus shooting your statement here in the foot.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm The ghost of Rodney King speaking here.

 

[Jokodo]

No more than it is racist to say that you regard blacks as different ant that you're not that keen on them but you are happy for their needs to be accommodated by founding black colleges and universities as long as they're kept out of mainline state universities and Ivy League schools.

The race analogy does not work.<snip>

Of course it does - what you are proposing is treating people as less then us "normal" people for who they are. That's vile, and it'd still be vile if you could somehow show that the difference is significant in any relevant way, which you haven't.

 

[mojorising]

Of course it does - what you are proposing is treating people as less then us "normal" people for who they are.

That is an emotional overstatement of the situation.

It is treating an activity differently (the pair bonding of 2 homosexuals) because it is a different activity to marriage (the pair bonding of a man and a woman).

The main basis is an argument from tradition that the ceremony has a very ancient heritage and to make such a radical redefinition in the name of political correctness is absurd when an alternative solution is available - creating a new tradition and legal structure for this new activity.

The new activity bears some resemblance to marriage but is also substantially different in a very visible and obvious way so suggesting a new ceremony and legal structure is totally reasonable.

The notion of tradition is used to defend all kinds of activities all over the world every day and it is a perfectly reasonable basis for argument.

There are additional practical legal arguments that marriage grants automatic adoption rights when preference should be given to married couples (a man and a woman). But you can choose to discard this argument if you do not agree and the argument from tradition still stands.

There is also the argument that homosexuality is not properly understood yet and is quite possible (likely I would say) to be a defect in the development of the sexual instinct. From this basis it is something to be studied with a possible view to rectifying the issue when medical science permits. From that position you would say that there is justification in ring-fencing the legalistics around homosexual integration into society until it is better understood. But again, you can discard this argument if you don't like it and the argument from tradition still stands.

 

[Ford]

The main basis is an argument from tradition that the ceremony has a very ancient heritage and to make such a radical redefinition in the name of political correctness is absurd when an alternative solution is available - creating a new tradition and legal structure for this new activity.

The new activity bears some resemblance to marriage but is also substantially different in a very visible and obvious way so suggesting a new ceremony and legal structure is totally reasonable.

The notion of tradition is used to defend all kinds of activities all over the world every day and it is a perfectly reasonable basis for argument.

Oh, sure. We did this in America not all that terribly long ago. There was a tradition we practiced which had a heritage every bit as long as any. Those who sought to end that tradition were considered radicals. The very laws of nature and nature's god were brought to bear in order to defend this tradition. It was literally - to hear it's defenders tell it - sanctioned by God himself.

The economy of just about half the nation was based upon this tradition. Not just wedding cakes, but the whole shebang. As such, the defenders of this tradition were willing to fight in order to keep it. Not just because abandoning it made them feel icky, but because their livelihood depended upon the tradition continuing. This led to a rather astonishingly bloody war. Actually the most devastating war in our history.


The tradition was forcibly ended when that war went south (that's a bit of a pun, by the way) for the staunch defenders of that lifestyle, but in the aftermath there was a - as you say - new tradition and legal structure put in place to approximate the old tradition. It was named after a fella called Jim. Terms like "separate but equal" were thrown about. The folks who lived in the region that lost the war kept those who were oppressed under the old tradition oppressed under the new tradition.

People who said that the new tradition was not all that terribly better than the old tradition were attacked. Sometimes with dogs and fire hoses. Sometimes with bombs. Sometimes they were just taken out into a swamp and murdered.


Why? Tradition.


Yes, the notion of tradition is used to defend all kinds of activities all over the world every day. Here in the United States, it was used to defend chattel slavery. When that tradition was ended, the notion was used for another century to defend segregation. Traditionally, black people were considered ever so slightly less than human. Tradition taught that they could be treated differently.


Tradition was wrong.


If all you've got is tradition, your argument is on shaky ground, and needs to be reconsidered.

 

[mojorising]

Just because some traditions can be demonstrated to be morally wrong does not make the notion of tradition itself inherently wrong.

Marriage has an existing definition.

Homosexual partnerships are a new thing which are similar but also different to marriages.

There is no defining answer that says one solution is right and one is wrong.

It is substantially a matter of opinion.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

beliefs that conflict with the 21st century holy grail and mindless mantra of 'equality'

So, I question the authenticity of your atheism, because you used the word 'sacred' as part of an argument. I never said you can't be an atheist because you oppose gay marriage.
I never said you can't logically hold any position.

You, however, reduce ALL of your opponents to mindless, trend-driven people chasing a fad.

I wonder how you'd score on a creationist argument bingo card?
It's a conspiracy.
People are afraid to support The Truth.
It's all 'obvious' to you.
Tradition has always held...
It'll lead to society's ruin.
There's no scientific evidence to support it.
The scientific evidence is against it.
Some day, science will prove...with evidence we don't have...yet.
No evidence offered for your position.
Your side doesn't have to make logical sense...

Keith&Co. In fairness, religion is enough of a non-issue here that the terms have been appropriated from religion and no longer carry quite the same meanings that they do in places where religion is taken seriously.

mojorising. Just stop. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself with 44 pages of repetition and your talk of representing some sort of majority makes the rest of us look like worse dicks than the rest of the world already believes us to be.

Or at least read the posts of the people who have shown you that homosexual marriage is not a new thing, and the others who are speaking to what you say, and do them the courtesy of answering their points.

 

[Ford]

Homosexual partnerships are a new thing

Not really.

 

[Jokodo]

Of course it does - what you are proposing is treating people as less then us "normal" people for who they are.

That is an emotional overstatement of the situation.

No, it isn't. You are emotionally overreacting to your dislike of gay sex and coming up with all sorts of excuses for treating people differently for who they are.

It is treating an activity differently (the pair bonding of 2 homosexuals) because it is a different activity to marriage (the pair bonding of a man and a woman).

How is it a different activity? In what relevant sense? Can you show me a definition of marriage that refers to penis-in-vagina penetration? Because the impossibility of that seems to me to be the only consistent difference. Do you argue that the marriages of heterosexual couples that are found to only practice oral or anal sex should be annulled?

The main basis is an argument from tradition that the ceremony has a very ancient heritage and to make such a radical redefinition in the name of political correctness is absurd when an alternative solution is available - creating a new tradition and legal structure for this new activity.

Which ceremony? The ceremony of a guy asking another guy for the hand of his daughter and negotiating a bride price, or the ceremony of killing all men of the enemy tribe and taking the women as spoils of war?

The new activity bears some resemblance to marriage but is also substantially different in a very visible and obvious way so suggesting a new ceremony and legal structure is totally reasonable.

Every two marriages are different from each other. You have failed to point out a single relevant difference that puts all heterosexual marriages on one side of the line while putting all homosexual marriages on the other.

The notion of tradition is used to defend all kinds of activities all over the world every day and it is a perfectly reasonable basis for argument.

There are additional practical legal arguments that marriage grants automatic adoption rights when preference should be given to married couples (a man and a woman). But you can choose to discard this argument if you do not agree and the argument from tradition still stands.

There is also the argument that homosexuality is not properly understood yet and is quite possible (likely I would say) to be a defect in the development of the sexual instinct. From this basis it is something to be studied with a possible view to rectifying the issue when medical science permits. From that position you would say that there is justification in ring-fencing the legalistics around homosexual integration into society until it is better understood.

Would you also argue that men being into older women are a "defect in the development of the sexual instinct"? If so, do you propose to ban marriages between a 35-yo man and a 50-yo woman? Why or why not? If not, why not? If you believe that the sole purpose of sex and pair bonding is to reproduce, shouldn't all pair bondings that are inherently incapable of producing children be on the same plane?

But again, you can discard this argument if you don't like it and the argument from tradition still stands.

The argument from tradition doesn't give you anything.

 

[Jokodo]

Just because some traditions can be demonstrated to be morally wrong does not make the notion of tradition itself inherently wrong.

No, but it is sufficient to show that the notion of tradition on it's own cannot be used as an argument for a position if you are unable to justify that position independently.

Marriage has an existing definition.<snip>

Which, in the case of Australia, dates back all the way to, wait for it, 2004.

 

[Ford]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Keith&Co.]

Keith&Co. In fairness, religion is enough of a non-issue here that the terms have been appropriated from religion and no longer carry quite the same meanings that they do in places where religion is taken seriously.

Maybe.
But mojo keeps talking about how humans are supposed to be.
How they're supposed to love.
How they're supposed to bond.
How kids are supposed to be raised.

This constant refrain of how we're intended to live strikes me as very religious at the base. The idea that there's an overarching plan of some sort.

I always thought atheism stood for 'shit happens.'