Gay marriage in Australia

[mojorising]

But we haven't determined it's a mutation, have we?

We have not determined that it is selected for either.

Downs is not selected for but it crops up as regularly as homosexuality (or it did before amniocentesis)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Downs is not selected for but it crops up as regularly as homosexuality (or it did before amniocentesis)

But if it crops up for different reasons, your point is lost.

I'm okay either way. Good, bad, neutral, it's still just like supermodel sex.... Something that happens to other people, but isn't worth treating them differently for.





Did you skip post #76?

 

[mojorising]

But if it crops up for different reasons, your point is lost.'

The point is not lost because the point is that marriage is a heterosexual cultural tradition and whether homosexuality has an evolutionary basis or not, or can be fixed or not, changing the definition of marriage is an excessive imposition on such an an ancient tradition to pander the political agenda of a very vocal minority.

The idea is not that the trait is given equal footing, but the people should be give equal opportunity.

They are being given an equal opportunity. They are free to have relationships, legal partnerships, co-habit, are protected from victimisation.

Marriage can be left with its existing cultural definition of being a pair-bond between a man and a woman and homosexuals can start a new cultural tradition of homosexual pair-bonding. This can be done without distorting the original definition of marriage.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The point is not lost because the point is that marriage is a heterosexual cultural tradition and whether homosexuality has an evolutionary basis or not, or can be fixed or not, changing the definition of marriage is an excessive imposition on such an an ancient tradition to pander the political agenda of a very vocal minority.

yes, the science is immaterial here. So the point that you claim you have a theory that it's a mutation is lost.
But how does 'changing the definition of marriage burden you at all?
What has it cost you?
What damage can you show a judge to say that allowing same sex marriages has affected you in any way?

The idea is not that the trait is given equal footing, but the people should be give equal opportunity.

They are being given an equal opportunity. They are free to have relationships, legal partnerships, co-habit, are protected from victimisation.

Same but different is not equality.
It's very specifically discriminating against them.
Why should that be tolerated?

Marriage can be left with its existing cultural definition of being a pair-bond between a man and a woman and homosexuals can start a new cultural tradition of homosexual pair-bonding. This can be done without distorting the original definition of marriage.

But there's no objective reason to do this. You don't 'own' the culture or the tradition, you certainly don't have a greater right to the definition of marriage than the gays have, or the straights who no longer support discriminating against the gays.
The tradition has changed drastically over time, without causing harm to any society, so there's no reason to protect it.

We can change it again. People HAVE changed it. The djinni is out of the bottle and people HAVE performed gay weddings, and society just keeps churning on.

YOU don't have to tolerate homosexuality. YOu don't have to invite it over, you don't have to smile at people's pictures of their homosexuality, you don't have to name your dog after homosexuality.

But your problem with homosexuality is not a good basis for discriminating against people.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Male - male attraction is quite normal. We call it bromance

Our fear of being gay has led us to fear male - male straight intimacy.

Mateship is not homosexuality. That is nonsense.

Erm... The only difference between deep friendships and boy-girl relationships is the sex and the snogging. They can be just as emotionally deep and rewarding. That´s certainly true regarding my closer friends (I don´t have sex with, men and women).

In most cultures fucking guys up the ass is not considered gay at all.

I think you are talking out of your a$$!! Sorry mate.

Did a quick search. This was the first that came up on it.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/truth-about-sexuality-ancient-greece-and-rome261012

The guy who is gay is the guy who takes it in the ass. As long as you don´t get it up your ass you´re considered straight as an arrow. Confusingly enough having sex with a woman with a strap-on also makes you gay. So yeah... it´s really only in modern times in the west where this monolithic idea of sexual identity exists. This idea comes from a purely theoretical scientific construct by Krafft-Ebbing dating to the late 19´th century. Why and how it´s stuck is an interesting topic in itself. But it´s time we let go of it. It´s not a particularly helpful way of labelling sexual behaviours.

The fact that a woman can, at all, get sexually aroused at other times then when they can conceive proves this.

You mean during foreplay that is not consummated? How does that prove any such thing? The intention of foreplay is a lead-up to sex.

No. I mean at other times of the month than those few days when she can conceive. If sex is only about having babies we the rest of the month having sex is a waste of time. Explain that? Are we all unnatural perverts?

Chimpanzee female butts swell up to twice the size and turn bright red when she can conceive. Unless the chimanzee butt is swollen in this way the male chimpanzees are utterly and completely uninterested in sex. They need the signalling of that ass to get turned on at all. Humans on the other hand can get turned on by all manner of weird shit.

The fact remains that they can and do form family units.
Whether or not you approve, your argument is defeated by that fact.

I think giving children to gay couples is a PC motivated mistake. Just because it happens is not a justification for saying that gay families are OK andthat that becomes a justification for an equal footing for homosexuality.

Loads of kids grow up in gay households. So it´s not like we need to speculate on their capacity as parents. As it happens they´re exactly as good parents as straights. As long as there exists orphans without any parents I think this one is a no-brainer. Any parents is better than no parents. You really need to hate children to think that an orphanage is a better home than a gay home.

And chris'sake, man, do you really believe that marriage as a union of one man and one woman is something that dates back to prehistory? Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

Actually, yes I do. Do you not agree that humans are evolved as a pair-bonding species so there is an evolutionary basis for the institution we now call marriage? If you do then it is likely to date back to prehistory but it certainly does date back to the earliest recorded history.

Most common form of marriage historically (ie the most natural) = polygamy. So unless you´re arguing for polygamy I´d say you´re clueless and just full of bigoted gay hating shit.

 

[laughing dog]

It seems a likely explanation.

Why? It could be easily be the result of a recessive gene. Are you also bothered by blue-eyed people or people who can curl their tongues? After all, there really is no purpose for blue-eyedness or the ability to curl one's tongue.

It could just be a commonly recurring mutation of the gene that controls sexuality. So could heterosexuality for that matter.

It could be from environmental factors.

It could be to do with the hormonal biochemistry of gestation.

We don't know.

All of the same can be said about heterosexuality for that matter.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The guy who is gay is the guy who takes it in the ass. As long as you don´t get it up your ass you´re considered straight as an arrow.

n the Navy, it wasn't that you did it, it was whether or not you enjoyed it.
A standard bubblehead joke was that every 60 days, we sucked each other off to see if we had become homosexuals from prolonged exposure to an all-male environment.

As long as you threw up afterwards, it was okay. But the first time you enjoyed it, you had to stop because you were now a homosexual.

 

[Toni]

nm

 

[Keith&Co.]

I feel that the gay community could be more understanding of historical cultural values and settle for legal partnerships without redefining the term 'marriage'.

Huh. I just looked up the term 'marriage,' and i'm reminded of the term 'bible.' Thus the problem is solved.

A while back, someone on another forum was upset because a character on the Dilbert TV show referred to something as 'the bible of our industry.'
He was upset because The Bible is a term reserved for the holy scripture that the Christains think they own. That is one definition of the term.
But there's also another.

(not capitalized) a publication widely read and considered very important <the bible of show business>

So it's perfectly valid to refer to a commonly used and authoritative reference document as a bible. A fishing bible, a gunsmithing bible, a bible for writers of TV show....

'Bible,' after all, refers to a term for a collection of books. Which evolved from a term for a book as a collection of paper. Which evolved from a term for a certain high-quality form of paper. Which evolved from a city, Byblos, which was important in the trade of papyrus.
SO the poster who was complaining about the sanctity of the term, bible, was essentially trying to protect a word that's as sacred as Xerox, or Boise Cascade.

Well, there's also more than one definition of marriage.

2. a combination or mixture of two or more elements.

So it's already quite acceptable to the joining of two people into one household as 'a marriage' of the two lives.
The milk has not only been spilt, it's been mopped up, the floor's dried and people have walked over the spot enough even the cat can't tell there was milk there.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I feel that the gay community could be more understanding of historical cultural values and settle for legal partnerships without redefining the term 'marriage'.

Wait... what? You are aware that homosexuals have historically been persecuted for their sexual tastes for thousands of years? We only just recently stopped doing it with the help of our courts. They have a very large and gaping emotional wound that´s pretty fucking far from healed. If you think they have any reason to be understanding of any stuff us "normals" do after all the shit we´ve put them through I´d call you a psychopath. They owe us nothing. It´s rather the other way around.

I think gays deserve us being extra nice to them for the next fifty years or so. Extra nice. With sprinkles.

 

[Jokodo]

There seems to be a pervasive atmosphere of assumption in the Australian press just now that everybody is OK with the cultural institution of marriage being redefined to accommodate the legal needs of the gay community.

Marriage is a human cultural institution common to all cultures and dating back 10s of thousands of years. It has its roots in the evolved pair-bonding behaviour of the human species for reproductive purposes.

If gays want legal recognition of their partnerships then could this not be achieved without redefining marriage?

I feel that the gay community could be more understanding of historical cultural values and settle for legal partnerships without redefining the term 'marriage'.

There must already be a gay marriage thread on this forum? I would be keen to read it to get folks POV.

You know that until approximately 1970, married women in many western countries needed their husbands approval to initiate court proceedings against a third party, or to work outside the house? I don't know the exact date for Australia and couldn't find it on google on the quick, but it was 1965 in France and 1975 in Austria, for example.

"If those bluestockings want legal recognition of their partnerships while maintaining full individual rights, then could this not be achieved without redefining marriage?

I feel that the feminist community could be more understanding of historical cultural values and settle for legal partnerships without redefining the term 'marriage'." - mojorising, ca. 1960

 

[Jokodo]

Why should we change the definition of a tradition that dates back to prehistory? Why doesnt't the gay community start its own tradition of gay unions or partnerships?

We changed the definition of marriage when we outlawed polygyny. We changed the definition of marriage when we started to require the bride's explicit consent. We changed the definition of marriage when we made it a crime for a husband to kill his wife even when he caught her cheating. We changed the definition of marriage when we let married women own their own property. We changed the definition of marriage when we let married women work outside the house without the husbands explicit, written approval. We changed the definition of marriage when we erected, and then dropped, bans of miscegenation. We changed the definition of marriage when we recognised that marital rape is a thing.

Do you think all those changes should be undone? If not, what makes the change that allows same-sex marriages so categorically different from all those other changes that it alone deserves being fought against as the end of marriage as we know it?

 

[TSwizzle]

We changed the definition of marriage when we outlawed polygyny. We changed the definition of marriage when we started to require the bride's explicit consent. We changed the definition of marriage when we made it a crime for a husband to kill his wife even when he caught her cheating. We changed the definition of marriage when we let married women own their own property. We changed the definition of marriage when we let married women work outside the house without the husbands explicit, written approval. We changed the definition of marriage when we erected, and then dropped, bans of miscegenation. We changed the definition of marriage when we recognised that marital rape is a thing.

Do you think all those changes should be undone? If not, what makes the change that allows same-sex marriages so categorically different from all those other changes that it alone deserves being fought against as the end of marriage as we know it?

It's glaringly obvious what the difference is.

 

[dystopian]

It's glaringly obvious what the difference is.

Obviously it's not, or this thread wouldn't be full of people wondering what the big deal is. It isn't at all obvious to most of us why the difference is big and relevant enough.

 

[Jokodo]

Marriage is *not* the "basis" of the family unit.

Yes it is. Both biologically, through sex, and culturally, through marriage.

Wrong. Biologically, sex is the only prerequisite for procreation. Marriage is irrelevant since marriage is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for sex (take me: None of the women I've had sex with was married; if there ever was a situation of mutual attraction between myself and a married woman, we never let it get so far). Economically, having a strong support net improves the child's chances of surviving and prospering, and in many (but not all) societies, the father is (expected to act as) an the most important pillar of that support net, but rarely if ever the only one. But even so, the father can act as an important pillar even in the absence of marriage - take me, again: I'm acting as a de facto single parent while the kid's mother is working abroad on a temporary contract, and we're not even married.

 

[Jokodo]

We changed the definition of marriage when we outlawed polygyny. We changed the definition of marriage when we started to require the bride's explicit consent. We changed the definition of marriage when we made it a crime for a husband to kill his wife even when he caught her cheating. We changed the definition of marriage when we let married women own their own property. We changed the definition of marriage when we let married women work outside the house without the husbands explicit, written approval. We changed the definition of marriage when we erected, and then dropped, bans of miscegenation. We changed the definition of marriage when we recognised that marital rape is a thing.

Do you think all those changes should be undone? If not, what makes the change that allows same-sex marriages so categorically different from all those other changes that it alone deserves being fought against as the end of marriage as we know it?

It's glaringly obvious what the difference is.

Some of the historical redefinitions really changed the very nature of the relationship involved. A "marriage type 1" where sex can be demanded at any time and a "marriage type 2" where sex is something we expect to happen but cannot be presumed to be available at any time are two very different concepts. That's what I call a redefinition.

Extending the group of beneficiaries without in the slightest changing the rules of the game isn't really a redefinition at all.

 

[Jokodo]

Hey Keith,

Yes I know there is some recorded instances of recognised homosexual unions throughout history but what percentage would you say that we are taking about here - as a fraction of all recognised marriages including heterosexual marriages?

I'm pretty sure that the number of marriages where both partners have green eyes was historically even smaller. In my book, that's not an argument to ban marriages between green-eyed people. Is it in yours?

 

[Jokodo]

because it's discriminating against citizens.

The literal meaning of discriminate means to to make a distinction between. Do I make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual partnerships? Yes I do because they are different.

I am fully supportive of gays being allowed to have civil unions for legal purposes and to have their rights to associate upheld since we are an empathetic and inclusive society nowadays.

I am not in favour of homosexuality being equated with heterosexuality. They are not the same. They are very different.

In what sense, though? Every relationship is different, but some are more similar than others depending on the individuals involved - their sexes, not so much. If I have experience in a relationship with someone who keeps forgetting to call back, it will help me not to feel abandoned when my new partner in a new relationship doesn't call me back immediately, and help me to get over my qualms and call them a second time after an appropriate time. If my new partner is someone who always calls back as soon as possible except when they're mad at me, my habit of trying again after a few hours will only further enrage them. Whether my old partner, or my new partner, or both, are men or women doesn't change a thing.

The same holds for the more fleshly parts of a relationship. If I have experience with a woman who likes it when I chew her nipples during sex, I will initially have an easier time pleasing a new partner (man or woman) who likes to have their nipples chewed, but might possibly earn myself a few slaps for hurting them with a new partner who doesn't (man or woman).

Claiming that two things are "very different" entails that the skills you need to be good at one are unrelated to the skills you need to be good at the other. Accounting and farming are very different, yet we as a society, accept that both former accountants and former farm workers should have a similar kind of support net to help them get back on their feet if they fail in their job. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not very different in that it's pretty much the same set of skills that helps you maintain a successful relationship whatever your or your partner's gender. So it's illogical to not ask for the same level of recognition of both forms of relationships.

 

[Jokodo]

That cannot possibly be true.

Wikipedia says 2-5%

There is absolutely no clear and obvious difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

One is an expression of the naturally evolved sexual behaviour of the human species (and all sexually reproducing mammals) and the other is not. Sex evolved with a function. To reproduce. In order for it to work it has to be between members of the opposite sex.

The lungs evolved with a function: To keep us afloat in the sea when we were still fish. Using them for breathing is obscene. Our limbs evolved with a function, to paddle. They were never meant to be used for stalking. In order for them to work, you have to be immersed in water. So what are you still doing on the dry?

The amniotic sac evolved with a function: to prevent the egg from drying out, thus allowing us to lay our eggs on land. How dare those fucking mammals (and some viviparous reptiles) not use it properly?

The larynx evolved with a function: To prevent food and water from getting into the (already misused) lungs. It was never meant for producing sounds, so you better shut up for the rest of your life.

The opposable thumb evolved with a function: To better climb in trees. So stop using your hands for typing.

The answer is, evolution doesn't work that way. The origin of an organ or instinct is an interesting question in its own right, but it is insufficient and often misleading when your goal is to find out about its current function or function(s). An organ that evolved for one function can turn out to be useful for other purposes too, and henceforth its evolution will depend on the requirements of more than one function. Organs, or instincts, don't have one eternal and inherent purpose, and everything else is a misuse. In fact, labelling something as a misuse doesn't even make sense from an evolutionary perspective - either it works, or it doesn't. Sometimes those chronologically secondary functions can entirely replace the original function which becomes obsolete (such as the lung as a floating aid), sometimes they co-exist peacefully, and sometimes they co-exist in a tug-of-war, with the different functions imposing different and opposing requirements on the same organ leading to a fragile equilibrium, with possible complications both ways and the possibility of a fairly rapid transformation if one of the functions suddenly becomes more important (this may be the case for the human larynx - it's lowered position, improving our vocal capacity, is actually the deep cause of quite a number of choking deaths especially among infants every year).

So, yeah, sex did evolve for reproduction, but reproduction isn't and hasn't been the only thing humans and their ancestors use sex for, since long before homo sapiens even existed.

 

[TSwizzle]

It's glaringly obvious what the difference is.

Some of the historical redefinitions really changed the very nature of the relationship involved. A "marriage type 1" where sex can be demanded at any time and a "marriage type 2" where sex is something we expect to happen but cannot be presumed to be available at any time are two very different concepts. That's what I call a redefinition.

It is amusing to read how you get a square peg into a round hole. Not just this response either. Keep bashing away at it, it's cool.