Gay marriage in Australia

[mojorising]

I saw a study claiming that about 50% of gay men didn´t like anal sex

I guess that would be the 50% that were on the bottom instead of on top!

(sorry - no offence intended to gay fellas - just a funny thought)

 

[bilby]

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.

You have yet to show that there is a '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.

Speak for yourself. As a member of the heterosexual majority with a number of 'out' homosexual friends, I have no more problem with them kissing and cuddling in public than I do with anyone else doing the same. If you do have a problem with that, then I suspect you are in a minority; And even if you were in the majority:

A) You are not the arbiter of how other people choose to behave in public; and
B) Preventing homosexuals from marrying makes exactly NO difference to whether or not they kiss or cuddle in public.

Your objections are both irrational and offensive.

In the meantime I think simply affording homosexuals recognised partnerships and protection from victimisation is more than reasonable.

Then you need to have a very serious re-think about what is '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?

Who is 'We'? It certainly doesn't include me. I am not 'letting' anyone have anything; I am demanding that everyone be treated equally under the law unless there is a clear and compelling reason to do otherwise. When people are denied equal rights under the law - to whatever degree - that is morally and ethically wrong. If you encourage or support such unfair treatment, you don't get to pat yourself on the back for being so kind as to not beat the shit out of the people you treat as second-class citizens.

 

[mojorising]

Speak for yourself. As a member of the heterosexual majority with a number of 'out' homosexual friends, I have no more problem with them kissing and cuddling in public than I do with anyone else doing the same.

I cannot believe that the majority of heterosexual males would not find it unpleasant to have to watch male homosexual activity in public. If laws are formulated for the maximum benefit of the majority then public displays of male homosexuality should be legally curtailed.

 

[bilby]

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.

[nitpick]I actually implied 'equally bigoted' not 'more racist', which is a rather lesser claim[/nitpick]

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.

It isn't for everyone. I am not particularly social or friendly, so I don't have to worry about it a lot. When someone does express a strongly bigoted opinion to me, I simply ask them to consider whether they are giving their victims a fair go; usually they will resile from their statement if it isn't met with wholehearted agreement; If not, I have no particular problem with not having them as friends - there are plenty more fish in the sea.

 

[bilby]

Speak for yourself. As a member of the heterosexual majority with a number of 'out' homosexual friends, I have no more problem with them kissing and cuddling in public than I do with anyone else doing the same.

I cannot believe that the majority of heterosexual males would not find it unpleasant to have to watch male homosexual activity in public. If laws are formulated for the maximum benefit of the majority then public displays of male homosexuality should be legally curtailed.

Public displays of sexuality are legally curtailed.

The genders of the participants don't make one iota of difference - Fortunately, what you can or cannot believe is not the driving force behind the law.

If you don't want to watch people holding hands or kissing, you should avert your eyes. Regardless of their gender. Nobody 'has to watch'.

I don't want to see flabby middle-aged men in budgie smugglers, but if I go to Surfers, it is up to me to look away (and up to others with the same attitude to look away from me). I am not going to sook about, demanding that the law protect me from having to see things I think are ugly, and nor should you. It doesn't hurt you; it doesn't even concern you. Eat some cement, and harden the fuck up.

I cannot believe that most Australians would support a ban on public displays of affection; If you want your girlfriend to have the legal right to kiss a man in public, then you have to give that right to everyone else too. Of course, if you do find all kissing in public distasteful, you can always emigrate to somewhere where such acts are illegal. I hear that the job prospects and tax situation in Saudi Arabia are pretty good too.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with marriage. There is no law that says you have to be married to kiss in public.

 

[mojorising]

I don't want to see flabby middle-aged men in budgie smugglers, but if I go to Surfers, it is up to me to look away

Well that is a whole other thread but I am with you on that all the way!

Seriously though, I think there is a difference in the level of offence caused by a public display of male homosexuality versus heterosexuality to the majority of the population.

I am not that keen on any public displays of affection but if 2 fellas sat near me on the beach and started kissing and cuddling I would move to another part of the beach.

If you want your girlfriend to have the legal right to kiss a man in public, then you have to give that right to everyone else too.

I don't think that is true. I think heterosexuality is the natural expression of human sexual desire and as such it enjoys a special position where limited public display is acceptable. I think any other sexual expression should be kept behind closed doors.

 

[bilby]

Well that is a whole other thread but I am with you on that all the way!

Seriously though, I think there is a difference in the level of offence caused by a public display of male homosexuality versus heterosexuality to the majority of the population.

I am not that keen on any public displays of affection but if 2 fellas sat near me on the beach and started kissing and cuddling I would move to another part of the beach.

If you want your girlfriend to have the legal right to kiss a man in public, then you have to give that right to everyone else too.

I don't think that is true. I think heterosexuality is the natural expression of human sexual desire and as such it enjoys a special position where limited public display is acceptable. I think any other sexual expression should be kept behind closed doors.

What you think is true bears little resemblance to what is actually true.

There is no reason to imagine that homosexuality is unnatural; nor does something being natural add the slightest weight to whether or not it should be allowed.

Your personal preference shouldn't be enshrined in law, any more than anyone else's.

And you still haven't explained what any of this has to do with marriage. You don't have to be married to kiss in public in Australia.

 

[mojorising]

There is no reason to imagine that homosexuality is unnatural

OK so I assert that homosexuality is a fault in the sexual brain circuitry of some humans.

It serves no purpose and creates social division and is distasteful to witness.

It would be in society's best interests if homosexuality could be eliminated in the future once we understand what causes it.

Can you give me a reason why homosexuality should not be eliminated in the future if/when we understand it's causes better?

 

[bilby]

There is no reason to imagine that homosexuality is unnatural

OK so I assert that homosexuality is a fault in the sexual brain circuitry of some humans.

It serves no purpose and creates social division and is distasteful to witness.

It would be in society's best interests if homosexuality could be eliminated in the future once we understand what causes it.

The same has been said in the past about left-handedness, Judaism, and speaking Welsh. It was wrong then, too.

Can you give me a reason why homosexuality should not be eliminated in the future if/when we understand it's causes better?

Because eugenics has always proven to be a cure that is far worse than the problems it tries to solve.

Diversity is good for society.

You have yet to explain why homosexuality is harmful to anybody.

And you still haven't said anything that is relevant to the question of marriage. Denying homosexuals the right to wed will not stop men from kissing in public, nor from having sex in private. All it does is prevent some people from having the same rights as others.

 

[bilby]

According to last year's Crosby Textor poll, 72% of Australians support same sex marriages - and that was last year; the Ireland referendum result and subsequent upswing in reporting of the issue has likely increased support since then.

When almost three quarters of the public are in favour, it is hard even for dyed-in-the-wool left-footers like Tony Abbott to hold back the tide.

 

[mojorising]

There is no reason to imagine that homosexuality is unnatural

I have given a theory that homosexuality is an error in the neural wiring of the sex drive in the brain.

If you don't agree with that suggestion then what is your suggested explanation of homosexuality as a phenomenon?

You have yet to explain why homosexuality is harmful to anybody.

I think it is harmful to society if a faulty manifestation of the human sex drive is driven by the political agenda of sufferers to be given equal status with the correct form of the human sex drive i.e. heterosexuality.

We don't yet know what causes homosexuality but I think one day we will understand it and we may even work out how to avoid it and it will be a historical footnote in the story of human evolution.

Until that time I think people with homosexuality should be be treated humanely but I think redefining the cultural institution of marriage to humour them is going a little bit too far.

Culture has value and should not be redefined at the drop of a hat according to this year's political fashion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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 it? It appears in a number of animal species. That would mean it likely evolved. So, either
1) homosexuality has a benefit, so whenever it evolved it was selected for and retained in the gene pool.
or
2) homosexuality has a neutral effect, but it's a side effect of a beneficial trait. So the beneficial trait is selected for, and homosexuality is just along for the ride.
or
3) homosexuality has a negative effect, but none of the species that practice it have noticed, so far, so none have selected against it.

If homosexuality is a problem, then there's a problem with our understanding of evolution, because the problem should have taken care of itself.

So the razor would actually cut away your uninformed opinion that still has nothing but speculation going for it.

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

If it is a fault

Like I said, this is just your opinion. Not an objective fact, so it's still not qualifying as a reason to behave as if we'd identified homosexuality as a fault.

Sweet motherfucking Christ, that's not anything close to what i said.

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

No. It doesn't. You're comparing a trait to Down's because YOU think it's a fault, but that's your opinion. Not something that's been shown. So it has no bearing.
Not until you can pony up the actual science that supports your rather bigoted view of a significant portion of the biosphere.

If homosexuality is a neural wiring fault

Still just your opinion.

Heterosexuality has an obvious evolutionary cause. Homosexuality does not.

Not obvious to you? Okay.
And not all things scientific are obvious. We've only really just scratched the surface of evolutionary science.
You're jumping the gun without justification to do so.

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

Options 1, 2 and 3.
You have not yet shown that homosexuality is not an essential part of the human species. Nor has it been shown to be negative. Nor neutral.

You can't just pick one speculative option and pretend it's the only possibility.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, I reviewed the thread and counted on my fingers.

'Marriage' is the celebration of the pair-bonding of a man and a woman with the traditional expectation that this binds 2 families together genetically through progeny.

You say that the tradition goes back a plural of 10,000 years. And this tradition is for a genetic bonding of families.
You don't really think that the idea of genetic bonding goes back to the time of people hunting the woolly rhinoceros? Or expect anyone to take that idea seriously?

But you do throw 'genetically' in there, as if that was important. If it really was a consideration, then no adopted child could be named as heir.

Most families do not really treat their adopted children as different from the other kids because of any expectation that the families are bonded 'genetically.'

Sometimes they do. My grandmother always made the distinction. "They have two kids and two adopted kids." "No, grandma, they have four kids ,shut the fuck up."

So straights can adopt or use surrogates or NOT HAVE BABIES and it's alright for them.
Gay couples can do all of that, too.

Maybe not increasing the tribe was a bad thing back when your main source of clothing and protein was the size of a panel truck and moved like a freight train, but that's not really a consideration these days.


Oh, and if you're going to posit technology advances that will one day validate your position, why not posit the other? MAYBE before we identify the cause of homosexuality, we'll figure out how to mix the genetic donations of two women or two men to make a test-tube baby that'll be theirs and only theirs and all theirs and it'll be a baby that'll combine the two blood lines. Just like traditional marriage (Not counting adulterers, rape victims, swingers, adoption, hospital mix-ups and children from a prior marriage).

 

[mojorising]

No. It doesn't. You're comparing a trait to Down's because YOU think it's a fault, but that's your opinion. Not something that's been shown. So it has no bearing.

I am not using the Downs comparison to be offensive. I am using it because it is an instance of a negative effect with zero benefit that just keeps cropping up, which runs counter to the evolutionary argument which says that characteristics that are negative will be selected against, and therefore homosexuality must have a benefit that we don't understand. I think the Downs comparison provides an argument that says that this is not necessarily the case; purely negative characteristics can just keep cropping up for purely unfortunate reasons if the species has a genetic susceptibility.

homosexuality has a negative effect, but none of the species that practice it have noticed, so far, so none have selected against it.

How do you know that? Maybe some species did select against it and that is why they no longer exhibit it.

What percentage of species exhibit homosexual behaviour? A tiny micro-percentage of all the known sexually reproducing species. Positing homosexuality as an erroneous behaviour is quite plausible. A faulty sex drive is sexual attraction to anything other than an adult of the opposite sex and same species. Minor faults would probably leave the affected individual most likely to be attracted to the object in the universe that is most similar to the correct target e.g. men not attracted to female homo sapiens they would instead be attracted to male homo-sapiens. Same size (a bit bigger), same texture (a bit rougher), same intelligence and similar emotional responses.

Until a clear evolutionary benefit from homosexuality can be identified I think the faulty wiring theory is the simplest and therefore the best theory.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am not using the Downs comparison to be offensive. I am using it because it is an instance of a negative effect with zero benefit that just keeps cropping up, which runs counter to the evolutionary argument which says that characteristics that are negative will be selected against, and therefore homosexuality must have a benefit that we don't understand.

Must? I doubt that 'must' is the best word.
But since we don't understand what causes homosexuality, we can't say it's part of the genetic makeup or a birth defect.

But we've observed it in a lot of species, which argues that there is either a benefit or at best it's neutral.
Why else would so many species display it?

I think the Downs comparison provides an argument that says that this is not necessarily the case; purely negative characteristics can just keep cropping up for purely unfortunate reasons if the species has a genetic susceptibility.

Feel free to provide evidence that homosexuality is purely negative. I mean, besides the fact that it offends you....

homosexuality has a negative effect, but none of the species that practice it have noticed, so far, so none have selected against it.

How do you know that? Maybe some species did select against it and that is why they no longer exhibit it.

Wow.
Well, to support that supposition, we'd have to have some record of a species practicing it in the past and then stopping.

What percentage of species exhibit homosexual behaviour? A tiny micro-percentage of all the known sexually reproducing species.

Well, it's only been observed in a shitload of species, but how many researchers have studied any given species close enough to determine for a fact that they do not practice it, never, never, ever?
You can speculate on it, sure. But none of the observed facts support any claim that it's purely negative, that it's a choice, that it's unnatural.

Positing homosexuality as an erroneous behaviour is quite plausible.

Just nothing you can show any support for.

A faulty sex drive is sexual attraction to anything other than an adult of the opposite sex and same species.

How wonderful for you that your definition supports your bias! Isn't that lucky!
But can you show that the gene pool does not ever in any way benefit from homosexuality?
And even if this is true.

Even if all of it is a 'fault' of the wiring.

Why does that support discrimination?

Until a clear evolutionary benefit from homosexuality can be identified I think the faulty wiring theory is the simplest and therefore the best theory.

But it's not even a theory. Theories require some facts to support them. You can't support a theory by the absence of countering facts. That's not science.
Except maybe in creationist labs...
Especially since you're ignoring the possibility that homosexuality is just neutral.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wait, wait, wait.

Okay, I see the problem, here.

Mojo, you're discussing how society has and will treat homosexuality. You think it's a disease or some other negative condition and it shouldn't be 'equal to' heterosexuality.

Most of the rest of us probably couldn't care any fucking less about the homosexuality. Genetic trait, birth defect, choice, alien mind control, the rising influence of teeth whiteners in society, an evolutionary adaptation to lunar tides in the workplace....

Whatever.


To most of us, the discussion is not and should not be about the TRAIT. It's about the people.

You're arguing about the unnaturality of the gender preference and you want to treat people differently because of it. We don't really think that traits are a good reason to treat people differently. Skin color, gender preference, handedness, the ability to tie a full Windsor, dog people/cat people, etc.

Frankly, I'd hope I would try to respect the choices even of those people who freeze turds and use them as dildos. I'll never eat at their house, but I would hope not to discriminate against them just because their interests make me uncomfortable.

So.

Aside from all your unscientific hypotheses on the origin of homosexuality, why is any of that a basis to discriminate against our fellow human beings?
The idea is not that the trait is given equal footing, but the people should be give equal opportunity.

Argue that.

 

[mojorising]

Feel free to provide evidence that homosexuality is purely negative

I don't need to prove it is purely negative. Only predominantly negative.

OK, homosexuals cannot reproduce. It is a waste of genetic resources to have a male homo-sapiens that cannot procreate.

Yes they can mitigate against this by fostering nephews and nieces but inability to procreate themselves means they have to work twice as hard so it is a negative effect of homosexuality.

Well, to support that supposition, we'd have to have some record of a species practicing it in the past and then stopping.

You said that had never happened before. That is not true. It may well have happened. Indeed, it is very likely to have happened since homosexuality is an observed occurence in nature but its inability to procreate directly would tend to select against long term propagation.

You can speculate on it, sure. But none of the observed facts support any claim that it's purely negative

None of the observed facts support any claims that it is not predominantly negative. Nobody has any theory on why it is a good feature that should be selected for by evolution. Just because it is observed occasionally making an appearance in a species as a random mutation with a sustainable frequency does not make it a selected feature.

Theories require some facts to support them.

No they do not. When Einstein posited his theories of general and special relativity he made it up in his head using thought experiments and then told some lab researchers to investigate the ideas and they turned out to be correct.

I have given reasons why I think an mutational aberration is the simplest explanation. In the absence of counter-evidence the simplest explanation is by default the best explanation.

Even if all of it is a 'fault' of the wiring.

Why does that support discrimination?

Because it is making a huge change to an ancient tradition to pander to the political agenda of a tiny minority.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't need to prove it is purely negative. Only predominantly negative.

You SAID purely negative. So I asked you to prove it's purely negative. If you can't, don't make claims like that.

OK, homosexuals cannot reproduce.

That's not true. Homosexuals reproduce all the time.

It is a waste of genetic resources to have a male homo-sapiens that cannot procreate.

Well, 1, they CAN procreate, and 2, how would that be a waste even if it were true?

Yes they can mitigate against this by fostering nephews and nieces but inability to procreate themselves means they have to work twice as hard so it is a negative effect of homosexuality.

Still not true. They can procreate.

Well, to support that supposition, we'd have to have some record of a species practicing it in the past and then stopping.

You said that had never happened before.

Where did I say that?

That is not true. It may well have happened. Indeed, it is very likely to have happened since homosexuality is an observed occurence in nature but its inability to procreate directly would tend to select against long term propagation.

A complete and total disregard for evolutionary theory.
Gene pools evolve, not individuals.
So the question is whether the gene pool benefits, not the individual.
And if homosexuality is genetic, the individuals do not have to pass along their genes, as long as their parents, the ones who made them homosexuals, pass along THEIR genes, the ones with a potential to make homosexual offspring.
Are you sure you're an anti-theist?
Because your grasp of evolution is damn-near a creationist's.

You can speculate on it, sure. But none of the observed facts support any claim that it's purely negative

None of the observed facts support any claims that it is not predominantly negative. Nobody has any theory on why it is a good feature that should be selected for by evolution.

Up a few posts, you said there WERE theories, you just didn't find them convincing. Now there aren't any?

Just because it is observed occasionally making an appearance in a species as a random mutation with a sustainable frequency does not make it a selected feature.

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

Theories require some facts to support them.

No they do not.

Yes, they do. Or they're just hypotheses.

When Einstein posited his theories of general and special relativity he made it up in his head using thought experiments and then told some lab researchers to investigate the ideas and they turned out to be correct.

Gosh, I wonder if he had any sort of math to back up his theory before they could design some experiments for the research?
And exactly when in the process he shifted from hypothesis to theory?

I have given reasons why I think an mutational aberration is the simplest explanation.

And they suck.

In the absence of counter-evidence the simplest explanation is by default the best explanation.

That's now how science works, though.
You need to support your own hypothesis. Not just make everyone else do your homework.

- - - Updated - - -

Why does that support discrimination?

Because it is making a huge change to an ancient tradition to pander to the political agenda of a tiny minority.

It's not all that huge a change. And there have been plenty of changes to the 'ancient tradition,' anyway.
And your problem isn't the minority who are homosexuals. It's the political block of heterosexuals who no longer see homosexuality as a reason to discriminate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

None of the observed facts support any claims that it is not predominantly negative. Nobody has any theory on why it is a good feature that should be selected for by evolution.

Has it occurred to you that it is just a "feature" and it isn't either good or bad. It just is. Plenty of people out there with allegedly "bad" "features" that wouldn't help the evolutionary propagation of the species (slow, lazy, dumb), are we keeping them from marrying and having kids?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Culture has value and should not be redefined at the drop of a hat according to this year's political fashion.

So you wish to change my culture which says gay marriage is okay after a decade of discussion?