Gay marriage in Australia

[Keith&Co.]

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

It does make the argument from tradition for the sake of tradition, wrong.
Destroying some traditions has been a good thing.

So you're in no position to just claim that adding samesex couples to marriage is a risk. You've never identified the risk or explained the hazard.
What will we lose?
HOW will it affect anyone else?

Gay marriage may make my father throw up, but an interracial marriage made my grandfather throw up. That wasn't a reason for the two of us to not get married, nor is it a basis for the state to disallow such marriages.

You need to identify actual problems rather than just fear mongering.

And, lucky you, there are traditions of gay marriage all over the place! Look to the countries that have it and point out where their societies suffer! Or where individuals face a burden of some sort due to the destruction of 'tradition.' How do the taxes shake out? Does the street sweeper union have a horrible burden with increased wedding litter?

You claim you have a rational stance, show the rationale.
Rather than just point fingers and whine....

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

It is substantially a matter of opinion.

Cost.

You are demanding a substantial number of man-hours be spent updating the existing laws, legal decisions, agency and company policies, government and business forms, without providing a rational justification FOR spending that much money.

How does society benefit from changing a hospital ICU visiting regulation about 'spouse' to 'spouse or legal almost-but-not-quite same-sex equivalent?'

What does society risk if we just leave it as 'spouse?'

Be specific, for an adequate cost/benefit analysis.

If there are no specifics, that kinda limits the justification for the cost, don't it?

 

[RavenSky]

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.

"moral code"??? You have a very strange definition of "moral", but that's a topic for a different thread. As to this thread, "the recognition that sexual-attraction" differences are largely superficial" also applies, which makes the analogy a very good one. There is nothing about a same-sex marriage that is substantively different from a heterosexual marriage.

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.

no "redefinition" is required.

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.

Actually, there is a way to show that you are objectively wrong in your demand for "separate but equal" - the history of "separate but equal" proves it doesn't work. Moreover, your way is objectively more expensive with zero additional benefits to anyone. So yes, your position is objectively wrong.

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.

likewise the differences between "gay" vs "straight" are not worthy of discrimination.

 

[RavenSky]

Marriage has an existing definition.

factually wrong. This is not, and never has been, one and only one definition of marriage.

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

Factually wrong. Homosexual partnerships have existed for at least as long as there has been written records, and homosexual partnerships exist throughout the animal kingdom as well.

 

[mojorising]

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.

Hey PipSqueak, just curious but who is the 'us' you are referring to? I did not quite follow the meaning of your request.

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.

No individual 'person' is being treated differently. It is one 'activity' which is being distinguished from another. Any member of society is free to 'marry' a member of the opposite sex. Any member of society is free to form a homosexual partnership with a member of their own sex.

 

[Jokodo]

Hey PipSqueak, just curious but who is the 'us' you are referring to? I did not quite follow the meaning of your request.

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.

No individual 'person' is being treated differently.

False. John is allowed to marry Jane, Anne isn't. Therefore, Anne is being treated differently.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is one 'activity' which is being distinguished from another.

Yes, of course. You want to treat homosexuality different.
We want to treat homosexuals as equals.

Therein lies the unjustified distinction.

 

[mojorising]

False. John is allowed to marry Jane, Anne isn't. Therefore, Anne is being treated differently.

Anne is not being treated differently. Anne can marry any person of the opposite sex because that is the definition of marriage. Anne can also form a civil partnership with any member of her own sex as can John and Jane. Same rules for everybody.

 

[Jokodo]

False. John is allowed to marry Jane, Anne isn't. Therefore, Anne is being treated differently.

Anne is not being treated differently. Anne can marry any person of the opposite sex because that is the definition of marriage. Anne can also form a civil partnership with any member of her own sex as can John and Jane. Same rules for everybody.

People usually want to marry a particular person not just anybody whoever. Being allowed to marry any member of a set that doesn't include their beloved one is worth next to nothing.

You do realise that the exact same argument was used to defend laws against miscegenation? "A black man can marry and woman of his own race, just like a white man can marry any woman of his own race. Same rules for everybody." Actually, in order to make it really parallel, since you're also proposing to withhold some rights (adoption and others unspecified) from homosexual couples, you'd have to make some additional distinction. How about only white widows can claim pensions?

The exact same argument could also be used against letting women vote in the general elections a century ago: "Why not create a second, female chamber of parliament instead? No-one's being treated differently - John gets to vote for the male chamber, and Mary gets to vote for the female chamber. We'll give them equal weight in legislating all laws on which they'll get to vote, though obviously foreign policy and defense will be decided by the male chamber alone."

 

[Keith&Co.]

Anne is not being treated differently. Anne can marry any person of the opposite sex because that is the definition of marriage.

So, the definition of marriage is that Anne can marry anyone you approve of?

Anne can also form a civil partnership with any member of her own sex as can John and Jane. Same rules for everybody.

Separate but equal. That' snot the same rules for everybody, that's discrimination.

 

[Rhea]

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.

Mojo YOU MUST ANSWER THIS or you're just a tool.

 

[Rhea]

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.

Hey PipSqueak, just curious but who is the 'us' you are referring to? I did not quite follow the meaning of your request.

I'm guessing she means the "majority" you claim to speak for. Whether you think it's a worldwide majority or an Australian majority (her country). We're heterosexuals who DO NOT agree with your mean, spiteful and hateful stance against gay men. When you say "the majority thinks this," you're just horribly, objectively, quantifiably, embarrassingly WRONG.

A Crosby Textor poll, commissioned by Australian Marriage Equality, has found that 72 per cent of Australians want same-sex marriage legalised,

the remaining 28% who may either oppose it or have no opinion ARE NOT a majority.

Here's another one

Public support to legalise same-sex marriage is at its highest level in almost five years, the latest Fairfax/Ipsos poll reveals.

The poll finds 68 per cent of voters support gay marriage whereas one quarter, or 25 per cent, are opposed.

The support is 3 percentage points higher than the 65 per cent recorded when the issue was last polled by Fairfax Media in August 2013. It is the highest level of support recorded on the six occasions the issue has been tested by Fairfax since November 2010. Back then, support was a poll-low of 57 per cent.

The 25 per cent opposition to gay marriage is also the lowest level recorded in the poll. It is a fall of 3 points since August 2013 and down from a poll high of 37 per cent in November 2010.

Just just a tiny hateful minority screaming and crying because teh world isn't all about you.

Waaaannnh.

 

[Rhea]

I think I'll do a little searching through polls to find the answers to,

"More people support _X_ than support gay marriage bans in Australia"

Let's see... (I'll edit this as I find them, but others are free to join in.) We'll call it 25%. Anything that has greater support than 25% is fair game.

here's a good one,

More people like Donald-Fucking-Trump than like bans for gay marriage in Australia

there's more...
More people like the Death penalty in America than Australians in favor of bans for gay marriage.
all right, you got me on the movie Gigli. Only13% liked it. Twice as many Australians like bans for gay marriage.

 

[Jokodo]

I think I'll do a little searching through polls to find the answers to,

"More people support _X_ than support gay marriage bans in Australia"

Let's see... (I'll edit this as I find them, but others are free to join in.) We'll call it 25%. Anything that has greater support than 25% is fair game.

here's a good one,

More people like Donald-Fucking-Trump than like bans for gay marriage in Australia

there's more...
More people like the Death penalty in America than Australians in favor of bans for gay marriage.
all right, you got me on the movie Gigli. Only13% liked it. Twice as many Australians like bans for gay marriage.

There are about as many Britons who think the Apollo mission was faked as there are Australians against gay marriage.

 

[Rhea]

More Americans favor selling aborted fetus body parts than Australians who favor banning gay marriage.

More Australian couples "swing" than oppose gay marriage.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We'll call it 25%. Anything that has greater support than 25% is fair game.

25% of your population would be 5.7 million.
The number of Australians who favor gay marriage bans outnumbers the population of Denmark, but not Kyrgyzstan.

This is about the same as the number of Americans with bipolar disorder.

More Americans are prevented from voting due to being convicted felons than there are Australians who want to ban gay marriage.

More Arabs live Israel than there are Australians who want to ban gay marriage.

Hell, there are more female soccer players in America than there are Australians who want to ban gay marriage.

 

[mojorising]

Australians in favor of bans for gay marriage.

This is a classic straw man argument. My position is that I support homosexual men having civil partnerships. Their desire to pursue committed and legally recognised relationships is quite reasonable.

I think marriage has a traditional definition and there is no harm in keeping it out of posterity (and some other practical legal reasons).

The legal needs of homosexuals can be served through other legal means.

Keith says this is too much legal effort but how much effort is it to make amendments to selected bits of legislation stating that all references to marriage/spouse etc. also includes homosexual parters.

The straw man is you turning this into a position of me wanting to 'ban' gay marriage. It does not exist in Australia so I am not banning anything.

I'm guessing she means the "majority" you claim to speak for. Whether you think it's a worldwide majority or an Australian majority (her country).

Yes, I figured it out. The Location is Victoria so I am guessing the 'us' is aussies.

Mojo YOU MUST ANSWER THIS or you're just a tool.

I have pointed out the glaringly obvious difference of heterosexual marriage being an example of the natural order of things. i.e. a pair bonding of the complementary sexes: male and female. Homosexual partnerships are an adequate interim legal structure to create while we are in the process of trying to understand more about the nature of homosexuality.

"moral code"??? You have a very strange definition of "moral", but that's a topic for a different thread.

Sticking with your own kind used to be a valid moral code since tribalism is part of our evolutionary make-up. The globalised nature of our modern environment has seen this moral code fall by the wayside and become no longer relevant and indeed even immoral.

The number of Australians who favor gay marriage bans outnumbers the population of Denmark, but not Kyrgyzstan.

Most of these people are just being swept along in a froth of shallow populism for the fizzy flavour of the month political cause without stopping to reflect on the consequences.

 

[bilby]

This is a classic straw man argument. My position is that I support homosexual men having civil partnerships. Their desire to pursue committed and legally recognised relationships is quite reasonable.

I think marriage has a traditional definition and there is no harm in keeping it out of posterity (and some other practical legal reasons).

The legal needs of homosexuals can be served through other legal means.

Keith says this is too much legal effort but how much effort is it to make amendments to selected bits of legislation stating that all references to marriage/spouse etc. also includes homosexual parters.

The straw man is you turning this into a position of me wanting to 'ban' gay marriage. It does not exist in Australia so I am not banning anything.

I'm guessing she means the "majority" you claim to speak for. Whether you think it's a worldwide majority or an Australian majority (her country).

Yes, I figured it out. The Location is Victoria so I am guessing the 'us' is aussies.

Mojo YOU MUST ANSWER THIS or you're just a tool.

I have pointed out the glaringly obvious difference of heterosexual marriage being an example of the natural order of things. i.e. a pair bonding of the complementary sexes: male and female. Homosexual partnerships are an adequate interim legal structure to create while we are in the process of trying to understand more about the nature of homosexuality.

"moral code"??? You have a very strange definition of "moral", but that's a topic for a different thread.

Sticking with your own kind used to be a valid moral code since tribalism is part of our evolutionary make-up. The globalised nature of our modern environment has seen this moral code fall by the wayside and become no longer relevant and indeed even immoral.

The number of Australians who favor gay marriage bans outnumbers the population of Denmark, but not Kyrgyzstan.

Most of these people are just being swept along in a froth of shallow populism for the fizzy flavour of the month political cause without stopping to reflect on the consequences.

And what, exactly, are those consequences?

I plan to marry in Queensland in thirteen months time. How will my marriage, or anything else in my life, be affected if a gay couple get married in New Sourh Wales at the same time? Or if thousands of gay couples get married all across Australia between now and then?

How will I even know about, much less suffer 'consequences' from, these other weddings?

From your tone, clearly you think that 'the consequences' are severe enough to make me think twice. But you seem oddly unable to state exactly what they are, or why I should give a shit.

 

[Rhea]

Australians in favor of bans for gay marriage.

This is a classic straw man argument. My position is that I support homosexual men having civil partnerships. Their desire to pursue committed and legally recognised relationships is quite reasonable.

I think marriage has a traditional definition and there is no harm in keeping it out of posterity (and some other practical legal reasons).

The legal needs of homosexuals can be served through other legal means.

Keith says this is too much legal effort but how much effort is it to make amendments to selected bits of legislation stating that all references to marriage/spouse etc. also includes homosexual parters.

The straw man is you turning this into a position of me wanting to 'ban' gay marriage. It does not exist in Australia so I am not banning anything.

LOL, nice try.

No. It's not a straw man.
You want to DENY marriage to human adults.

Some people used to like the language, "do we let them get married?" BUt that's not the real question, is it. "letting" "THEM" do something isn't what you have the power to do. Marriage is a right that is available to all adults in Australia. You want to DENY someone a RIGHT to choose their spouse.

Now let's get you your cheesy little dodge that you aren't banning "marriage" because you want to offer them separate-but-not-quite-equal and you want to BOTH call that not-marriage and ALSO claim that you're giving them "marriage-without-the-name"

But the reality is that you want to DENY them marriage.


Reality is, "wanting bans for gay marriage" is EXACTLY what you want. Whether you want a continued ban on gay marriage or whether you want to impose a ban if equality is passed, either way, you know, I know, everyone knows - what you want is to DENY MARRIAGE TO SOME ADULTS IN YOUR COUNTRY because they want to marry someone you don't want them to marry.


Pathetic that you think playing little word games is appropriate in the face of your desire to cause misery, pain and hardship to other humans in your country.

It's not a straw-man. It's YOU wanting to DENY MARRIAGE to consenting adults among your countrymen.
What a bastard. What a mean, bullying hurtful bastard would do something like that just because he personally thinks the spousal choice is icky.

I have pointed out the glaringly obvious difference of heterosexual marriage being an example of the natural order of things. i.e. a pair bonding of the complementary sexes: male and female. Homosexual partnerships are an adequate interim legal structure to create while we are in the process of trying to understand more about the nature of homosexuality.

No, it's not glaringly obvious, as has been carefully pointed out to you.

• There is no "natural" pair bonding, only forced unnatural laws. Nature includes lots of homosexuality as has been shown to you.
• It's not about breeding because OBVIOUSLY no one asks marriage applicants what their breeding intentions are and nothing in the law addresses it.
• It's not about sex because OBVIOUSLY no one asks marriage applicants what their sex position intentions are and nothing in the law addresses it.
• It's not about complementing because OBVIOUSLY no one asks marriage applicants what their complementary intentions are and nothing in the law addresses it. Moreover, there is such a wide range of personalities that it is OBVIOUS that heterosexual couples have more variation among them than the variation which separates hetero from homo couples. Look at my statistic of swingers in Australia. How's THAT in your definition of marriage? A man a woman and several pair of neighbors? MORE of those than you bastards that want to deny marriage to gays.

And we understand ALL that we need to about homosexuality. Gays make great neighbors, co workers, parents and grandparents. We have THOUSANDS of years of data on that.

Most of these people are just being swept along in a froth of shallow populism for the fizzy flavour of the month political cause without stopping to reflect on the consequences.

On the contrary, we have lots of data on what the consequences would be as has been pointed out to you.
Please point out what's wrong in Canada? What's wrong in Amsterdam? What's happened in America?

It just remains a rat-bastard bully mindset of wanting to make the whole world fit your tiny little view.

And by the way, I am LMAO at you slipping some Santorum into your sentence there. Well done with the fizzy froth, friend.

 

[mojorising]

Pathetic that you think playing little word games is appropriate

It is you who are playing word games by twisting the definition of the word 'ban' to make my position sound less reasonable.

Let me state again that I am in favour of legal support for homosexual partnerships and that these partnerships be recognised as equivalent to marriage in many circumstances.

It is not necessary to redefine marriage to achieve these outcomes.

The impetus to do so is primarily borne of a political desire not a practical need.

Heterosexual pair-bonding represents the natural order. Homosexual pair-bonding desire is a reality of the human condition but we do not understand the cause of this anomaly.

Children have a right to as natural an environment as is possible when they are adopted and should not be the subject of a social experiment while we are still in the process of discovering the environmental and/or biological causes of homosexuality.