Gay marriage in Australia

[dystopian]

2-3% identify as homosexual in an anonymous poll. Pretty much in line with my numbers.

Wow, real selective cherry picking there. You pick the one bit of evidence that at first glance seems to (but really, only seems) support your position, but ignore the rest that doesn't.

Downs syndrome is also a natural trait but it is not considered correct and nobody would flinch at the idea of treating it to correct it in utero.

First off, I didn't say the bit you're responding to. Learn to use the quote function properly.

Secondly, what the actual fuck is wrong with you? Seriously? Comparing being gay with downs syndrome? How on earth could someone possibly be so clueless as to say insane shit like that and STILL wonder why people think they're bigots?

 

[DrZoidberg]

2-3% identify as homosexual in an anonymous poll. Pretty much in line with my numbers.

There is such a thing as queer theory. People actually study this stuff. Sure, there´s a lot of postmodernist rampant nonsense. But most of it actually makes a lot of sense. Especially the stuff surrounding sexual identity.

They have noted that in our modern society we have placed sexuality as a superior category, letting it inform pretty much everything in life. When in reality it´s way more complicated.

Male - male attraction is quite normal. We call it bromance, man-crush or girls have girl-crushes on each other. These are pretty much identical to homosexual crushes, except that there is no sex involved. They´re also identical to straight crushes, regardless if sex is involved. Our fear of being gay has led us to fear male - male straight intimacy. Which is absolutely bananas. That is not the sign of a healthy society.

In most cultures fucking guys up the ass is not considered gay at all. The ancient Greeks certainly didn´t. It was the manliest and straightest thing in the world. Our brains have hardly evolved that much since then. So what´s up with that? Obviously there´s more to the picture than simple and neat gay/straight/bi categories.

Queer theorists argue that the only reason some of us frown upon anal sex between men is because of misogyny. We think that a man who gets penetrated by another man has lowered himself to the level of women. Oh, cherrish the thought. If that´s how you feel about it.... well... that´s something to talk to your therapist about. I agree.

Taking surveys on our sexual behaviour shows that some people´s sexuality is very rigid. Our sexual interest are cemented at about five years old and there´s nothing that can change them. For some people sexuality is pretty fluid, and stays fluid their entire life. Men have more often rigid sexuality while women more often have fluid sexuality. For example, most (self identified) gay women have at some point had sex with a man, while most (self identified) gay men have never had sex with a woman. It´s the same kind of pattern among those who identify as straight.

In reality we´re attracted to a bunch of different things. Some are gender specific. Some things aren´t. And it´s more or less fluid/rigid.

The evolutionary explanation for this is that humans use sexuality for more than just procreation. Which is obvious when you think about it. The fact that a woman can, at all, get sexually aroused at other times then when they can conceive proves this.

This is not to say that all people are bisexual. It´s more like the categories gay/straight/bi are overly simplistic. They´re so simplistic that they fail to grasp what´s going on. On top of that we have a cultural fixation about forcing people to pick a team, once, for your life, no matter if that label fits or not. And then we try our best to fit ourselves into that team. It´s over-thinking it.

If it gives you a hard-on and it´s happy about it, then fuck it. If you want to marry it, and it wants to marry you, enjoy. There´s really no need to complicate matters it more than this. And does it really matter what other people are up to in bed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory

My two cents... again... so I´m up to four cents.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I think many people simply express support by default because they feel it is politically incorrect to state what they truly feel about gays being allowed to redefine marriage.

But we're talking about anonymous polls. Usually, they provide good evidence about what people believe and/or support, even if they're fallible. Ignoring them would be ignoring the best piece of evidence we have about public views in Australia.

(How can you do quotes that name the person being quoted?)

You just write {quote=mojorising} (or whoever you want to quote), then write whatever you want to quote, and then close by writing {/quote}, but use "[" and "]" instead of "{" and "}" respectively.

They are a very small (but very vocal) group at only 2% of the population.

A ban on same-sex marriage is actually sex-based discrimination (e.g., a woman is allowed to marry a man, but a man is banned from doing the same on account of his sex).
So, the entire population is being discriminated on that basis, but most don't care because they're not interested in that freedom.

In any case, if you're looking for the number of people potentially affected in that they wouldn't be allowed to have their relationships recognized as a marriage, you should include the percentage of bisexual people as well, since bisexual people may happen to be in a same-sex relationship and want it recognized.

It is not moving the goalposts. The argument is only about whether marriage is between a man and a woman or between any 2 people. Most historical marriage definitions are intended as being for life but some might not have been but all were heterosexual.

If you're talking about legal definitions, definitions of some words (apart from "marriage" which is English) that denote some legally recognized relationships vary widely from jurisdiction (country, province, city, whatever) to jurisdiction, through history, but it seems most actually do allow dissolution of those relationships and the formation of new ones after that. If you believe otherwise, please present your evidence.

That aside, for that matter, most legal definitions involving opposite-sex relations didn't treat men and women as equal, but the woman (or women) was legally bound to obey the man, and many definitions (I don't know how many) accepted bounds without the woman's consent.

At any rate, if you want a more careful discussion of the matter, I would suggest you make the argument more clear. Is it a moral argument? What behavior do you claim is immoral? And why do you think there was a single concept of "marriage", or even a definition of "marriage" in other societies?
My point is that "marriage" is a word in English, which has different legal meanings in different English-speaking jurisdictions. In many places, the word did not exist, and their actual words have different legal meanings, so you'll need to clarify your argument and provide evidence in support of it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Keth:- Look at the pictures of Neil Harris, his spouse and their kids. They love each other and they're raising their kids and they seem to be happy.
What's the difference that's ENOUGH of a difference to deny them the right to do exactly that?

I don't think they should be allowed to have kids but that is a different argument. We can do that one in this thread too if you want but I think it will get a bit cluttered.

But your marriage argument was that they didn't have kids. That they couldn't form the family unit that is the basis, you claim, of a traditional marriage.
The fact remains that they can and do form family units.
Whether or not you approve, your argument is defeated by that fact.

Dystopian:- The simple fact that they do means that it's a natural trait.

Downs syndrome is also a natural trait but it is not considered correct and nobody would flinch at the idea of treating it to correct it in utero. Just because something appears recurrently does not make it a good or natural or correct thing.

That was my quote, not Dystopian;s, and it was in regard to your claim that the purpose of sex evolved for procreation.
Good, bad or indifferent, if it's occurring naturally, then it IS natural. Yet another of your claims is defeated, though you push hard on the goalpost.

Dystopian:- What if atheism is simply a failure of the brain to produce a sufficient quantity of dopamine? Would you want to be treated for your condition?

Yes I would, if God really exists and a brain chemical imbalance means I can't see him, but I doubt that this is the case.

This is completely apart from whether or not God exists. This is about whether or not you'll accept a religious argument. "Snakes talk, therefore evolution is disproved," that sort of thing.

There just aren't that many groups i would trust to be in charge of setting 'normal.'
You'd reset the gay trait.
My grandfather would have reset my attraction to anyone but a white girl.
And he would have urged the authorities to reset my wife's attraction to anyone who wasn't black.
There was a time the Catholics would have reset left-handedness.

But this is completely aside from the point. These people currently ARE gay, and there's no reason to think it's an unnatural trait, or something that needs to be suppressed, changed, or treated as any different from heterosexuality.

 

[J842P]

This is one of things I find disturbing about the PC mania surrounding this subject. If anybody voices any opposition to the gay political juggernaut they are branded 'bigots' and 'homophobes'. Why can somebody not value their cultural traditions without having pejorative terms thrown at them?

The majority now believe that gay people deserve equal acceptance into the culture at large, and that includes their relationships being recognized the same as heterosexual relationships.

But their relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. Heterosexual marriages are the basis of the family unit (even though some marriages do not result in children). Homosexual partnerships are not.

They are different things.

The attempt to gloss over differences and make it an offence to point them out reminds me of the way militant feminism operated in the 1970s. It was virtually a crime to suggest that there were differences between men and women which were anything other than social conditioning. The fact is homosexual and heterosexual partneships are substantially different things although they do share some similarities.

People call you a bigot because you express bigoted views. I understand this is difficult to hear, but you indeed are a bigot sir. The persecution complex is the last refuge of a bigot.

No one cares about those differences enough to deny them equal acceptance at large. It is your views which no longer are accepted, thankfully. 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?

Also, your nitpicking about the percentage of homosexuals in the population is irrelevant. It is not only homosexuals but the majority of heterosexuals which disagree with you.

 

[laughing dog]

Fortunately, there is a distinct historical trend for acceptance of gay marriage in developed countries, despite the vocal "emphatic" voices against it. The anti-gay marriage crowd has the weight of demography and history against it, along with the concept of fairness.

 

[mojorising]

Queer theorists argue that the only reason some of us frown upon anal sex between men is because of misogyny.

There is also the dirtiness aspect. People think poo is yukky (since it is) so they think anal sex is yukky but that is a bit of a diversion in the dicussion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good, bad or indifferent, if it's occurring naturally, then it IS natural. Yet another of your claims is defeated

Down's syndrome is natural. Do you think we should take steps to reduce its prevalence or not?

These people currently ARE gay, and there's no reason to think it's an unnatural trait, or something that needs to be suppressed

I am certainly not advocating changing existing gay people. But if one day an in-utero fix was avilable then it would give someone a heterosexual life where without the treatment they would be homosexual with fewer life opportunities (such as a natural family). So would that not be a good thing?

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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is also the dirtiness aspect. People think poo is yukky (since it is) so they think anal sex is yukky but that is a bit of a diversion in the dicussion.

Not all homosexuals practice anal sex. And more than zero heterosexuals practice anal sex. So, yeah, this is just discriminatory language.

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.

So, you were arguing that they CANNOT build family units, and when shown that they do, you slide over to wanting to deny their ability to make family units. Does your goal post have wheels or does it just slide across the grass?

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.

Just because it happens, however, destroys any justification based on the idea that it cannot happen.
So, again, your ariginal orgument is busted.

Good, bad or indifferent, if it's occurring naturally, then it IS natural. Yet another of your claims is defeated

Down's syndrome is natural. Do you think we should take steps to reduce its prevalence or not?

Completely immaterial in this discussion.
You can't base the treatment of people's rights on what may happen some day and some treatment we may have to reduce it.

These people currently ARE gay, and there's no reason to think it's an unnatural trait, or something that needs to be suppressed

I am certainly not advocating changing existing gay people.

Then that has nothing at all to do with their rights in today's society.

But if one day an in-utero fix was avilable then it would give someone a heterosexual life where without the treatment they would be homosexual with fewer life opportunities (such as a natural family). So would that not be a good thing?

No.
Vehemently, no.
No, i do not think it's wise for any group of human beings to have the power to decide what's normal.
If that group comes under the power of religious fundamentalists, or racists, or some other judgmental bitches, we're all screwed.
Imagine if the council of what's normal were made up of Westboro Baptists?
Or Aryan Nation?
Or Nation of Islam?

Also, the 'fewer life opportunities' are an artifact of people like you wanting to deny people the opportunities you yourself enjoy.
It's kind of circular to deny them opportunities because some day we could cure them of wanting those opportunities and we'll change them to match our expectations of opportunities.


Actually, more of a figure eight.

 

[bilby]

Why don't we have it?

Australia has overwhelming public support for equality on this issue; Of course it is very obvious in Kings Cross and Darlinghurst, but when the LNP Member for a seat in Far North Queensland is vocal in his support for marriage equality, and the Prime Minister's sister is engaged to a woman, you know that it is well past time for a change in the law.

The stumbling block, unsurprisingly, is religion; And in particular, Roman Catholicism. And in even more particular, the Prime Minister's Roman Catholicism, and the disproportionate representation RCs have in parliament.

Not only are there more self-described Catholics per capita in Parliament than in the country as a whole; They tend to be more strict in their adherence to RC dogma than the average Aussie catholic.

Why is this? It seems that in part, the electorate are more keen for their representatives to be religious devotees than they are to be devotees themselves - almost as if voting for an avowed Christian is an atonement for not being devout themselves.

Also contributing to this is the support (not only financial) and encouragement that candidates get from their churches. The lack of organised non-theist groups that can encourage or support prospective candidates, both in the community and within the structure of the major parties, leads to an over-representation of religion in the offices of power.

Personally I am in two minds as to what to do about this on a personal level. On the one hand, I have connections with the ALP, and could re-join that party, and either agitate for, or even stand myself as, a secular candidate for office; However the ALP is a hotbed Roman Catholicism, even here in Queensland (and it is far worse in NSW). The other path I am considering is to join the Secular Party of Australia, but in our effectively two party system, their influence is unlikely ever to be very significant. The absence of a State Senate in QLD means that the only real chance for an Secular Party candidate is the Federal Senate, and getting elected there is basically a lottery - for minor parties it all depends on preference deals and a fair bit of dumb luck.

The National President of the Secular Party is in Brisbane at the end of June, and I am going to go along to a meeting and sound out what the party are about - and perhaps to join up. Of course, if Christine Forster is right, the marriage equality issue will have been resolved long before the next Federal election; But there are plenty of other important issues for secularism in Australia that are worthy of my time and effort in support.

I have a theory. I was planning on moving to Australia a few years back. My company had offices in Perth and Sydney. So travelled to both. What a bunch of backward buffoons. Australians are not a particularly deep people. It´s pretty obvious that they have a very accepting, friendly and forgiving culture. That has it´s down-sides. One being that nobody will slam anybody for saying dumb shit. So dumb shit gets said all the time unchallenged. Back in Sweden political correctness is rampant and out of control. So I hate it. But the opposite extreme... Australia... It made me realize that some political correctness could be a good thing.

That´s my theory as to why Australia is against gay marriage. They´re mostly a bunch of backward homophobic and racist bastards. But friendly and pleasant to be around. I ended up not moving to Australia because of this. I just couldn´t take it. I´m not surprised in the least they´re against gay marriage.

I think 'mostly' is an exaggeration, but I do agree that some Australians seem to expect to be able to say extraordinarily racist, homophobic, and/or sexist things without anyone calling them on it. It is quite challenging if you come here from an environment where people are less openly bigoted; but in my experience it is actually a good thing - in the UK, people are just as likely to be bigots, but are far less likely to be open about it, so it just festers under the surface; whereas in Australia, you know exactly what people are thinking - and have the opportunity to challenge that thinking (or more often, lack of thinking).

I have found that, if called on their bigotry, most Aussies who express such sentiments turn out not to have really thought about it - and when they are gently challenged to do so, they usually change their position pretty fast. We have our fair share of painted-on bigots who will never change their minds; but I don't think they are a majority, nor do I think we have that many more bigotry than other developed nations - although it might easily appear that way to someone from a culture where political correctness is the norm.

 

[mojorising]

So, you were arguing that they CANNOT build family units

No, I am arguing that they SHOULD not be allowed to build family units. I don't think homosexuality is a normal expression of the human sexual instinct. I don't think homosexuals should be victimised for this but I don't think it should be encouraged either.

Completely immaterial in this discussion.

It is not immaterial since it provides a rationale for why homosexuality should not be put on an eqaul footing with heterosexuality, if it is, as I believe, a miswiring/fault in the human sex drive.

No, i do not think it's wise for any group of human beings to have the power to decide what's normal.

Downs syndrome is 'normal' by your definition, so should it be protected? Should women be prevented from having abortions if they are carrying a Downs baby?

most Aussies who express such sentiments turn out not to have really thought about it - and when they are gently challenged to do so, they usually change their position pretty fast

Well I have thought about this a great deal but I am still very interested to hear opposing arguments.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, I am arguing that they SHOULD not be allowed to build family units.

Now you are. You WERE saying that their inability to build family units was why homosexuality was so very different from heterosexuality that it redefined marriage.

I don't think homosexuality is a normal expression of the human sexual instinct.

There's just no scientific reason to think that this is true.

I don't think homosexuals should be victimised for this but I don't think it should be encouraged either.

Okay.
But that still leaves us with no objective reason to deny marriage rights to gays.

Completely immaterial in this discussion.

It is not immaterial since it provides a rationale for why homosexuality should not be put on an eqaul footing with heterosexuality, if it is, as I believe, a miswiring/fault in the human sex drive.

But you believe that without any evidence to prove it.
So as a reason to deny equal footing, it's a blank to be filled in at some imaginary time in the future.

Not useful for discussion of real world politics in the here and now

No, i do not think it's wise for any group of human beings to have the power to decide what's normal.

Downs syndrome is 'normal' by your definition,

Sweet motherfucking Christ, that's not anything close to what i said.
'Normal' was never my position on Downs syndrome. And i never said i would not treat it or see it treated.
It is 'natural,' sure, but that fact has no bearing on whether or not we should restrict marriage rights from people with other natural traits.

so should it be protected?

You're proceeding from a false premise here, so fuck off.

hould women be prevented from having abortions if they are carrying a Downs baby?

As above.

 

[bilby]

No, I am arguing that they SHOULD not be allowed to build family units. I don't think homosexuality is a normal expression of the human sexual instinct. I don't think homosexuals should be victimised for this but I don't think it should be encouraged either.

How about gender, or race? Would you say "I don't think women should be victimised for being female, but I don't think it should be encouraged either"? Would you say "I don't think people should be victimised for being Aboriginal, but I don't think it should be encouraged either"?

The assumption that it is even possible to 'encourage' homosexuality is quite bizarre.

Completely immaterial in this discussion.

It is not immaterial since it provides a rationale for why homosexuality should not be put on an eqaul footing with heterosexuality, if it is, as I believe, a miswiring/fault in the human sex drive.

If it is a matter of mis-wiring, then how can allowing those who are wired that way to live happy and fulfilled lives possibly lead to others being 'encouraged' to be mis-wired? Your position is not even internally logically consistent. Do you think sexuality is something people choose? How did you go about deciding to be heterosexual?

No, i do not think it's wise for any group of human beings to have the power to decide what's normal.

Downs syndrome is 'normal' by your definition, so should it be protected? Should women be prevented from having abortions if they are carrying a Downs baby?

Should they be required to?

most Aussies who express such sentiments turn out not to have really thought about it - and when they are gently challenged to do so, they usually change their position pretty fast

Well I have thought about this a great deal but I am still very interested to hear opposing arguments.

Well there are plenty of them out there.

 

[mojorising]

There's just no scientific reason to think that this is true.

The only rationale's I have read trying to explain homosexuality seem to be a bit reaching and far-fetched. Another possibility is that it is simply a recurrent faulty wiring in a complex brain circuit. Surely Occam's razor would favour the faulty-wiring theory?

But that still leaves us with no objective reason to deny marriage rights to gays.

If it is a fault then it should not be accorded equivalent social standing with the natural expression of the humans sex drive i.e. heterosexuality.

If it is true then allowing them to co-habit and have legally supported partnerships is probably a pretty good result for them. I would argue that that should be enough and that the existing definition of marriage as a cultural institution binding a man and a woman together should be left alone.

Sweet motherfucking Christ, that's not anything close to what i said.
'Normal' was never my position on Downs syndrome. And i never said i would not treat it or see it treated.
It is 'natural,' sure, but that fact has no bearing on whether or not we should restrict marriage rights from people with other natural traits.

OK maybe I should have said 'natural' instead of 'normal'. Either way it does have a bearing.

If homosexuality is a neural wiring fault with a cause (biological or environmental) that can be prevented (which I don't see there being any evidence to contradict) then it is not deserving of elevation to a social status where it is treated as an equally valid expression of the human sexual instinct as that of heterosexuality.

Heterosexuality has an obvious evolutionary cause. Homosexuality does not.

How about gender, or race?

Not relevant.

Gender is a real difference but both halves are a naturally essential part of the human species.

Race is not a real difference. It is only surface appearance.

If it is a matter of mis-wiring, then how can allowing those who are wired that way to live happy and fulfilled lives possibly lead to others being 'encouraged' to be mis-wired?

We don't yet know the causes of homosexuality but they may be partially due to environmental conditioning. Children should not be exposed to the idea that homosexuality is equally valid to heterosexuality in case it causes some of them to follow the path homosexuality where it could have been avoided. thus giving them a less fulfilling life.

 

[laughing dog]

The only rationale's I have read trying to explain homosexuality seem to be a bit reaching and far-fetched. Another possibility is that it is simply a recurrent faulty wiring in a complex brain circuit. Surely Occam's razor would favour the faulty-wiring theory?

Why would you assume that homosexuality is the result of faulty wiring?

If it is a fault then it should not be accorded equivalent social standing with the natural expression of the humans sex drive i.e. heterosexuality.

Since homosexuality has been around for millenia, wouldn't that make it natural as well?

We don't yet know the casues of homosexuality but they may be partially due to environmental conditioning. Children should not be exposed to the idea that homosexuality is equally valid to heterosexuality in case it causes some of them to follow the path homosexuality where it could have bee avoided. thus giving them a less fulfilling life.

Why do you assume that sexuality (hetero or homo) is a conscious choice? I don't know anyone - heterosexual or homosexual - who can point to when and how they choose their sexuality.

 

[bilby]

...

How about gender, or race?

Not relevant.

Yes, it certainly is, in the context of your suggestion that homosexuality can be 'encouraged'

Gender is a real difference but both halves are a naturally essential part of the human species.

Race is not a real difference. It is only surface appearance.

And homosexuality is just attraction to people who happen to be the same gender as you. How could that be 'encouraged', if it is innate? How would it be a problem to encourage it if it is not?

If it is a matter of mis-wiring, then how can allowing those who are wired that way to live happy and fulfilled lives possibly lead to others being 'encouraged' to be mis-wired?

We don't yet know the casues of homosexuality but they may be partially due to environmental conditioning. Children should not be exposed to the idea that homosexuality is equally valid to heterosexuality in case it causes some of them to follow the path homosexuality where it could have bee avoided. thus giving them a less fulfilling life.

Those of my friends who I know are homosexual have very fulfilling lives. In fact, about the only thing that they would want, to make their lives more fulfilling, is the right to marry the person they love.

If fulfilment is the objective (and I am not sure that it is), then the right to marry should not be denied to homosexuals, as it results in some of them having less fulfilling lives.

The idea that IF some environmental factor we know nothing about MIGHT cause SOME children to choose a path that MIGHT lead them to a less fulfilling life is a sufficient reason to deny gays the right to marry, while the KNOWN FACT that many gays would feel more fulfilled by having the right to marry is somehow able to be disregarded is, frankly, insane.

I am hungry; but I shouldn't be allowed to eat, because we don't know all of the causes of hiccups, so people shouldn't be allowed to eat food in case some of them might develop hiccups as a result.

If homosexuality is entirely genetic, then it is cruel to prohibit homosexuals from marrying.

If homosexuality is not entirely genetic (unknown), AND if simply by marrying, homosexuals will cause other people to become homosexual (unlikely), THEN you STILL need to show that being homosexual is harmful, or undesirable, before you have a case.

The only harm that results from homosexuality is that inflicted by homophobes.

 

[mojorising]

Why would you assume that homosexuality is the result of faulty wiring?

It seems a likely explanation.

Since homosexuality has been around for millenia, wouldn't that make it natural as well?

It could just be a commonly recurring mutation of the gene that controls sexuality.

It could be from environmental factors.

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

We don't know.

But if we found out and it was something that we could then avoid or fix I think it should be fixed. What purpose does homosexuality serve? Wouldn't life be easier for an individual if they were heterosexual. It would also give society one less problem to deal with if homosexuality could be understood and abrogated.

Why do you assume that sexuality (hetero or homo) is a conscious choice?

I don't think it is a conscious choice.

And homosexuality is just attraction to people who happen to be the same gender as you. How could that be 'encouraged', if it is innate?

We don't know of it is innate or learned but either way there is a possibility that medical science or social conditioning could address the problem.

The idea that IF some environmental factor we know nothing about MIGHT cause SOME children to choose a path that MIGHT lead them to a less fulfilling life is a sufficient reason to deny gays the right to marry, while the KNOWN FACT that many gays would feel more fulfilled by having the right to marry is somehow able to be disregarded is, frankly, insane.

Sexuality is an emotive subject. It is not all that pleasant for the heterosexual majority to have to witness public acts of homosexuality such as kissing and cuddling between 2 men for example so that is a problem that would go away if homosexuality were taken out of the picture at some point in the future. In the meantime I think simply affording homosexuals recognised partnerships and protection from victimisation is more than reasonable.

If homosexuality is entirely genetic, then it is cruel to prohibit homosexuals from marrying.

We are letting them have civil partnerships and protection. So it depends how you look at it. Is the glass half full or half empty?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I have a theory. I was planning on moving to Australia a few years back. My company had offices in Perth and Sydney. So travelled to both. What a bunch of backward buffoons. Australians are not a particularly deep people. It´s pretty obvious that they have a very accepting, friendly and forgiving culture. That has it´s down-sides. One being that nobody will slam anybody for saying dumb shit. So dumb shit gets said all the time unchallenged. Back in Sweden political correctness is rampant and out of control. So I hate it. But the opposite extreme... Australia... It made me realize that some political correctness could be a good thing.

That´s my theory as to why Australia is against gay marriage. They´re mostly a bunch of backward homophobic and racist bastards. But friendly and pleasant to be around. I ended up not moving to Australia because of this. I just couldn´t take it. I´m not surprised in the least they´re against gay marriage.

I think 'mostly' is an exaggeration, but I do agree that some Australians seem to expect to be able to say extraordinarily racist, homophobic, and/or sexist things without anyone calling them on it. It is quite challenging if you come here from an environment where people are less openly bigoted; but in my experience it is actually a good thing - in the UK, people are just as likely to be bigots, but are far less likely to be open about it, so it just festers under the surface; whereas in Australia, you know exactly what people are thinking - and have the opportunity to challenge that thinking (or more often, lack of thinking).

I have found that, if called on their bigotry, most Aussies who express such sentiments turn out not to have really thought about it - and when they are gently challenged to do so, they usually change their position pretty fast. We have our fair share of painted-on bigots who will never change their minds; but I don't think they are a majority, nor do I think we have that many more bigotry than other developed nations - although it might easily appear that way to someone from a culture where political correctness is the norm.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/

It seems like science supports you. But not the bit about Britain being more racist. Found, according to this study, to be the least racist country on Earth. I have no idea how they measured it though. That would be interesting. The questions would have to be very carefully formulated since very few racist actually identify as racists.

Still... the openness about the bigotry continually rubbed me the wrong way. I´m an extremely social person. So we kept getting invited to people´s parties. People we met in restaurants and bars. People could get way too open about their racism when we got a bit more intimate. People seem to naturally assume that I approve of what they say, since I´m so social and friendly. So they often open up pretty quickly. In Australia that could go wrong a lot. I just couldn´t take it.

 

[dystopian]

There is also the dirtiness aspect. People think poo is yukky (since it is) so they think anal sex is yukky but that is a bit of a diversion in the dicussion.

Straight men and women practice anal sex too you know.

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

Sorry, he's not; you are. In many cultures, the mere act of having sex with a member of the same gender is not considered gay. It would only be considered gay to pursue a romantic relationship with the same gender.

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, he clearly said aroused when she can't conceive. For instance during a certain time of the month? Or when she's barren? Surely you can comprehend the basic flaw in your own logic?

I think giving children to gay couples is a PC motivated mistake.

Good for you. And some of us would think the exact same thing about letting you have children.

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.

Actually, yes, it IS justification. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that gay couples do any worse by their children than heterosexual couples. As such, there is absolutely no reason beyond sheer hatred and bigotry to deny them the right to raise children.

Down's syndrome is natural. Do you think we should take steps to reduce its prevalence or not?

If you don't want to be called a bigot, you might want to start by not comparing people's sexuality to down's syndrome.

I am certainly not advocating changing existing gay people. But if one day an in-utero fix was avilable then it would give someone a heterosexual life where without the treatment they would be homosexual with fewer life opportunities (such as a natural family). So would that not be a good thing?

What 'fewer' life opportunities? Literally the *only* example of such you can come up with is a 'natural family'... and even that example is demonstrably non-applicable since gay people CAN in fact have children of their own through a variety of means.

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.

Insisting on this same line of rhetoric when it has already been disproven marks you out to be a fanatic incapable of adapting to the facts.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Straight men and women practice anal sex too you know.

Also... we´ve got a pleasure center in our ass that only can get stimulated by anal sex/penetration. Like it or not, we have evolved to enjoy butt fucking. In other words anal sex is natural. Since god put it there I can only assume it´s god´s wish we fuck each other up the butt as much as possible. You wouldn´t want to disappoint god, now would you?

Also 2... trivia. I saw a study claiming that about 50% of gay men didn´t like anal sex and didn´t do it. So... so much for that assumption.

 

[mojorising]

In many cultures, the mere act of having sex with a member of the same gender is not considered gay.

Where? You mean in prison? All modern cultures consider sexual relations between men to be acts of homosexuality.

As such, there is absolutely no reason beyond sheer hatred and bigotry to deny them the right to raise children.

Until we properly understand what causes homosexuality I think there is a good reason. If it is brought about by conditioning (a distinct possibility) then we should understand how this happens before more children are affected and grow up homosexual when they could have been heterosexual. These people will have grounds for a class action against the adoption authority when they grow up if this turns out to be the case.

If you don't want to be called a bigot, you might want to start by not comparing people's sexuality to down's syndrome.

Nobody has come back with any response to counter the comparison. If you are against the comparison what is your counter-argument?