Gay marriage in Australia

[Angra Mainyu]

Obviously from a political point of view you would rather see marriage changed to include homosexual union (notwithstanding the various obscure arguments I have heard that it already does) and I would rather see a more cautious approach but I don't think our views are as far apart as is being portrayed by many folk on this thread.

Obscure arguments?
If you don't understand my arguments, you can ask for clarification (though they are pretty detailed and clear), but instead, you don't reply and indirectly - in a side comment in a reply to another poster - you call my arguments "obscure", while you continue to repeat the same claims without engaging the arguments that show them to be either false or unwarranted. I'm afraid you're still not discussing the matter in a rational fashion. You're repeating claim after claim, dismissing explanations as to why they're either unwarranted or false (depending on the claim).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If we accept homosexual unions as 'marriage' it will become illegal to make any distinction between prospective parents who are a heterosexual couple or 2 homosexual men.

First, that's about the legal sense of the word "marriage", not about the colloquial usage of it, which already seems to include some same-sex relationships.
Second, as I already pointed out repeatedly - to no avail -, in several parts of Australia, such discrimination is already banned, regardless of marriage.
Third, even that is not the case. If there are good reasons for discriminating in that particular scenario, then those reasons can be applied regardless of whether the law recognizes same-sex marriage. You would just need to amend the law discriminating against male gay couples (or all gay couples), even if they are married.
Fourth, given that more and more states in Australia are banning discrimination in adoptions despite the fact that same-sex marriage remains banned, one wonders why you insist on the semantic claims at all - even though you don't defend them against counterarguments; you just insist on the claims -, rather than arguing against same-sex adoption, or adoption by gay men, or whatever you're arguing against (it's still unclear what your position on adoption by lesbian couples is).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Gay adoption of children is already legal in most of Australia.

That's hilarious. So, for 'equal protection' before the law, but not a traditional marriage, mojo would create a situation where heterosexuals can marry, homosexuals can partner, married couples can adopt, single gays can adopt, but partnered gays cannot adopt because that makes the odd gay couple equal to a marriage.

So they'd be adopting kids before marriage, or getting dissolvences (or whatever term applies to partnership divorces) long enough to get an adoption pushed through, then marrying and just keeping the kid like a child from a previous marriage.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Gay adoption of children is already legal in most of Australia.

That's hilarious. So, for 'equal protection' before the law, but not a traditional marriage, mojo would create a situation where heterosexuals can marry, homosexuals can partner, married couples can adopt, single gays can adopt, but partnered gays cannot adopt because that makes the odd gay couple equal to a marriage.

So they'd be adopting kids before marriage, or getting dissolvences (or whatever term applies to partnership divorces) long enough to get an adoption pushed through, then marrying and just keeping the kid like a child from a previous marriage.

To be fair to him, I really don't think that he's put enough thought into his position to go and consider the consequences of what he's arguing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

To be fair to him, I really don't think that he's put enough thought into his position to go and consider the consequences of what he's arguing.

That is fair, especially if he just doesn't know enough about the reality in the first place to figure the consequences. GIGO, as it were.
Or BIBO. (Bupkes In...)

 

[mojorising]

Mojo will insist that gay is harmful no matter what we learn, until he gets results he agrees with. Anything off point of that will be interpreted as not being science, but a political responsorial.

I just don't get a sense of open and free enquiry from the current political mood. I get the feeling that studies are funded on the understanding that the only politically acceptable outcome is reached, which is one that supports the homosexual political juggernaut.

So they'd be adopting kids before marriage, or getting dissolvences (or whatever term applies to partnership divorces) long enough to get an adoption pushed through, then marrying and just keeping the kid like a child from a previous marriage.

I think homosexual couples adopting is acceptable but heterosexual couples should be first in line as they usually are. If homosexual partnership is promoted to legal marriage it will become illegal to make a distinction in the case of adoption which is one of the reasons why I am against it.

Obscure arguments?
If you don't understand my arguments, you can ask for clarification

Angra it is possible to argue almost anything if you try hard enough. Many of the the countries of the world (including Australia) are engaged in a debate about whether to redefine marriage to include homosexual partnership. That is the debate I am engaged in. If you want to argue that this debate is redundant since, for the reasons you given, it is already marriage, then that is maybe an interesting intellectual exercise but I am more interested in the practical debate about the (as yet unimplemented) proposed change to legislation.

 

[fromderinside]

....

Obscure arguments?
If you don't understand my arguments, you can ask for clarification

Angra it is possible to argue almost anything if you try hard enough. Many of the the countries of the world (including Australia) are engaged in a debate about whether to redefine marriage to include homosexual partnership. That is the debate I am engaged in. If you want to argue that this debate is redundant since, for the reasons you given, it is already marriage, then that is maybe an interesting intellectual exercise but I am more interested in the practical debate about the (as yet unimplemented) proposed change to legislation.

Its not that marriage is being redefined. Its that laws are unequal regarding Gay marriage, any pair coupling and Heterosexual marriage. Since the inequality is endemic and equality is endemic having a proforma to do over marriage is the simplest thing to do. No paring should be advantaged by some sex rule. All pairing of two will be invited when Gay marriage is accepted. These todos over church teachings and beliefs are just evidence of the corrosive effects of religion in secular society.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I just don't get a sense of open and free enquiry from the current political mood. I get the feeling that studies are funded on the understanding that the only politically acceptable outcome is reached, which is one that supports the homosexual political juggernaut.

Can you point to any studies where they've falsified data to reach the desired conclusions?
Because it really comes across as paranoia.

So they'd be adopting kids before marriage, or getting dissolvences (or whatever term applies to partnership divorces) long enough to get an adoption pushed through, then marrying and just keeping the kid like a child from a previous marriage.

I think homosexual couples adopting is acceptable but heterosexual couples should be first in line as they usually are.

What if the kid is homosexual, mojo? Who should be in line for that kid?

This is assuming that your science gets to the point where we can identify for completely sure what causes homosexuality and what the kid's preference is/will be. Should gays not be the front of that line?

If homosexual partnership is promoted to legal marriage it will become illegal to make a distinction in the case of adoption which is one of the reasons why I am against it.

Which is why your fight against marriage equality is an effort for discrimination. And not based on any free and open inquiry, either.
Just your subjective distaste for gay mens.

but I am more interested in the practical debate about the (as yet unimplemented) proposed change to legislation.

If you're into the practical side, then what's with the bullshit about preserving the original meaning of marriage going back tens of thousands of years?

 

[mojorising]

Its not that marriage is being redefined. Its that laws are unequal regarding Gay marriage, any pair coupling and Heterosexual marriage.

Sorry but that is just a political position you are taking to try and tilt the perspective of the debate in your favour. The reality is that in most countries in the word marriage specifically means heterosexual marriage (in the legal definition) or is assumed to mean that (in the common social understanding).

What if the kid is homosexual, mojo? Who should be in line for that kid?

But we don't know what 'to be homosexual' actually means in terms of early childhood, before sexuality has developed as a characteristic. It could be like saying the baby is a catholic baby. i.e. its sexuality like its religion may be affected by its environment.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The reality is that in most countries in the word marriage specifically means heterosexual marriage (in the legal definition) or is assumed to mean that (in the common social understanding).

Prove it.
Show some numbers. Or else you look like you're just making shit up to tilt the perspective of the debate.

What if the kid is homosexual, mojo? Who should be in line for that kid?

But we don't know what 'to be homosexual' actually means in terms of early childhood, before sexuality has developed as a characteristic. It could be like saying the baby is a catholic baby. i.e. its sexuality like its religion may be affected by its environment.

Fucking BULLSHIT!
Part of your whole scheme has been that one day we'll know IN UTERO what the kid's sexuality will be and that the HUMANE treatment will be to CURE it then and there. There was no mincing words about maybe the environment then, was there?

There's nothing like any science supporting your position, but you hold it deeply.
Now, you want to wiggle out of the question by bringing up the completely lack of science supporting any other position. And you're on the other side of the fence.
ANYTHING you can do to keep from having to say that just maybe, a gay couple might be the best choice for some children.

 

[mojorising]

Part of your whole scheme has been that one day we'll know IN UTERO what the kid's sexuality will be and that the HUMANE treatment will be to CURE it then and there. There was no mincing words about maybe the environment then, was there?

Actually what I said was that it could be biological or it could be environmental but in either case, if you accept that it is desirable that homosexuality be averted (in the interests of the concerned individual and society in general) (which I know you don't accept), then, in that case the condition could potentially be offset by either biological or behavioural treatment.

There's nothing like any science supporting your position, but you hold it deeply.
Now, you want to wiggle out of the question by bringing up the completely lack of science supporting any other position. And you're on the other side of the fence.
ANYTHING you can do to keep from having to say that just maybe, a gay couple might be the best choice for some children.

If it were demonstrated that homosexuality were genetic and an orphaned child was very likely to be homosexual then I would agree that homosexual foster parents would be a good fit. Even in the case of heterosexual children I think a homosexual couple could make good parents I just would give the preference to a more conventional environment if it were available. Legalising heterosexual marriage would make this preference very difficult to support legally which I believe is not a desirable situation.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Legalising heterosexual marriage would make this preference very difficult to support legally which I believe is not a desirable situation.

I mostly read this thread to see if at some point you say "Surprise! Just fucking with you all." I feel like this post is close enough.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actually what I said was that it could be biological or it could be environmental

But i stipulated your fantasy science has come to pass and we already know, for whatever reason, that the kid's gay. So your objection was not appropriate for the question. Just more of your rationalizing.

Even in the case of heterosexual children I think a homosexual couple could make good parents I just would give the preference to a more conventional environment if it were available.

That doesn't match your previous statements on the topic. You wanted to deny it entirely.
I think at this point you're just trying to sound as if you could be reasonable on the topic.

But have you responded to any of the posts about the existing data on gays raising kids?
Or are you just going to reject any studies as 'marginal' or 'ephemeral' or 'politically guided,' unless they match your expectations?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I just don't get a sense of open and free enquiry from the current political mood. I get the feeling that studies are funded on the understanding that the only politically acceptable outcome is reached, which is one that supports the homosexual political juggernaut.

You seem to be doing just that with regard to some of your claims (e.g., the semantic claim), only in the opposite direction.
That said, clearly there are people who support gay rights but don't have good evidence or arguments for some of their beliefs, and are acting in a way that is epistemically unjustified - though at least, they're supporting the right side -; it seems plausible that that may have infected some studies, though if you claim that most or even all of the studies are in that situation, I would ask for evidence to back up the claim.

I think homosexual couples adopting is acceptable but heterosexual couples should be first in line as they usually are. If homosexual partnership is promoted to legal marriage it will become illegal to make a distinction in the case of adoption which is one of the reasons why I am against it.

Again, it's already illegal in parts of Australia without marriage, and also, even with marriage, it would not become illegal to discriminate if the law says it's okay. If there are good reasons for discriminating against gay couples in that regard, then that would not be a good reason not to accept gay marriage - rather, it would be a good reason to modify the law in those parts of Australia that ban such discrimination, and also a good reason to modify the law to allow such discrimination when gay marriage is also allowed.

Angra it is possible to argue almost anything if you try hard enough. Many of the the countries of the world (including Australia) are engaged in a debate about whether to redefine marriage to include homosexual partnership. That is the debate I am engaged in. If you want to argue that this debate is redundant since, for the reasons you given, it is already marriage, then that is maybe an interesting intellectual exercise but I am more interested in the practical debate about the (as yet unimplemented) proposed change to legislation.

While it's possible to argue anything if you try hard enough, I'm actually arguing sensibly and on point. You're just dismissing my sensible arguments. And you're actually misrepresenting my points now, even if you don't realize that. So, I will proceed to clarify what happened, at least for the benefit of readers - at this point, I don't have much hope you'll even read my posts seriously. If you did, at least you would probably not misunderstand them so much.

First, of course I do know that there is a debate about whether to redefine the legal concept of marriage in Australia.
Legal concepts of marriage have already been redefined in some places - such as the United Kingdom and Ireland (not in force yet). Legal terms in other languages have also been redefined in some places (e.g., in Uruguay and Argentina, "matrimonio" has been redefined).
In Australia, however, the legal word "marriage" has not been redefined, and does not include any homosexual partnerships as far as I can tell.

My arguments in those parts of my posts are not about the legal concept of marriage.
Rather, I'm arguing that the colloquial, ordinary sense of the word "marriage" in English already [very probably] includes some homosexual partnerships, either because the meaning changed (it was "redefined" if you like, but the term "redefined" suggests a deliberate action, and that does not seem to have been the case, at least for most people), or because it already included some homosexual partnerships but most people had not realized that yet, probably (if that's what happened) because most of them hadn't thought about homosexual partnerships in the first place, and others had a very distorted view of them, etc. But one way or another, it seems very probable that the concept of marriage in English (at least, the most common colloquial concept, legal concepts aside) already includes some homosexual partnerships.

Now, the argument I'm making is relevant to the matter at hand regardless of what other people (in Australia or somewhere else) are discussing, because you brought up that subject when you chose to make a claim ancient concepts that allegedly continue to be used today (at least by most) and allegedly exclude same-sex relationships. If you had been talking only about whether to redefine the legal concept of marriage in Australia (i.e., reasons for or against), and you had left aside the claim about the alleged ancient meaning of the word "marriage" - which you claim or imply is still the colloquial meaning in English, and exclude all same-sex partnerships -, then I wouldn't have replied to that particular claim of yours.

But you insisted - and still insist! - on that claim, and indeed when I offered a rather detailed critique of some of your claims (to add to the several ones I posted before), the semantic issue is the only one you chose to reply to.
So, I posted an objection to your arguments based on semantic claims here, but you failed to see the relevance of my objection, and even dismissed my arguments as an "intellectual exercise", when in reality I was addressing one of your main claims - the only one that you had apparently chosen to discuss with me.

Of course, I'm not arguing that the semantic debate is redundant, either. That you seem to think I am only indicates that you keep missing my points (and, sorry, you keep thinking my points are weak while in reality I've been seriously debunking your main claims for a while).
In fact, I know that the debate about whether the colloquial sense of "marriage" already includes homosexual relationships is not redundant in the context of a debate in which one of the people involved (namely, you) claims or implies that it does not include any of them, and uses that claim or implication (in addition to a claim about ancient concepts) to attempt to support some of his proposed courses of action. I reject your semantic claim, and gave arguments against it. That's not to argue that the semantic debate is redundant. That's actually to debate the point.

So, if your belief that I want to argue that the debate is redundant (you use an "if", but in context, you're implying I want to argue that it's redundant for the reasons you specify, and moreover, that I've been arguing that) is about the semantic debate, your belief about what I'm doing is both unjustified and false.

On the other hand, if you're not talking about the semantic debate but about the debate on whether or not Australia would be more just if the legal concept were changed (or whether lawmakers should change it, etc), of course - it's clear if you read my posts seriously -, I didn't suggest or argue that the debate was redundant, either, so your belief about what I want to argue is still both unjustified and false.

 

[mojorising]

My arguments in those parts of my posts are not about the legal concept of marriage.
Rather, I'm arguing that the colloquial, ordinary sense of the word "marriage" in English already [very probably] includes some homosexual partnerships, either because the meaning changed (it was "redefined" if you like, but the term "redefined" suggests a deliberate action, and that does not seem to have been the case, at least for most people), or because it already included some homosexual partnerships but most people had not realized that yet, probably (if that's what happened) because most of them hadn't thought about homosexual partnerships in the first place, and others had a very distorted view of them, etc. But one way or another, it seems very probable that the concept of marriage in English (at least, the most common colloquial concept, legal concepts aside) already includes some homosexual partnerships.

Well fair enough if you are talking about the social concept of marriage rather than the legal definition, then you may want to assert that marriage already refers to homosexual partnership, but that kind of assertion is hard to back up without a very time consuming and thorough study of contemporary language use; the types of study that the various English dictionary organisations use when deciding what new words to include for each new edition.

I can only reference my own experience in this regard and I have never heard a homosexual union referred to as a marriage by anyone other than an individual actively engaged in the political promulgation of the concept of homosexual marriage; but then maybe I don't move in the same social circles as you.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The reality is that in most countries in the word marriage specifically means heterosexual marriage (in the legal definition) or is assumed to mean that (in the common social understanding).

No, in most countries in the world, the word "marriage" is not used. The word "marriage" is a word in English.
We may consider the legal concept of "marriage" in some countries in which English is the predominant language (i.e., most of the population are native speakers).

a. In Canada, Ireland and New Zealand, the legal concept "marriage" already includes some same-sex relationships (still not in force in Ireland).
b. In the UK, the legal concept of "marriage" includes some same-sex relationships in England, Wales and Scotland, but not in Northern Ireland.
c. In the United States, the legal definition varies from state to state, but the definitions that exclude same-sex relationships have already been declared unconstitutional in most court cases; the matter hasn't been decided by the SCOTUS yet - though I will argue that those exclusions are unconstitutional, if you want to debate that (which I seriously doubt; you keep dodging).
d. In Australia, it does not include same-sex relationships.

Granted, there are countries where English is used in the legal system and "marriage" excludes same-sex unions (e.g., Uganda, Zimbabwe, Tanzania), and at least one that includes them (South Africa) but English is not the predominant language in the country.
So, it depends on how you count, it seems.

On the other hand, in the common social understanding, it is very probably false that in English, "marriage" means specifically heterosexual marriage. That's what I've been arguing, and that's what you've been dismissing. Do you see the pattern here? You continue to make claims about the common social understanding, continue to reply to them with evidence (which you do not provide), and you dismiss my replies that specifically address your claims as allegedly off-topic. What gives?.
I mean, it's not that you object to my arguments and evidence with counter arguments or counter evidence. You simply make a claim, and dismiss arguments and evidence against it.

ETA: I hadn't seen your post (posted 8 minutes before I posted this one; I hadn't refreshed the page yet); I will address your reply immediately above in another post.

 

[mojorising]

On the other hand, in the common social understanding, it is very probably false that in English, "marriage" means specifically heterosexual marriage. That's what I've been arguing, and that's what you've been dismissing. Do you see the pattern here? You continue to make claims about the common social understanding, continue to reply to them with evidence (which you do not provide), and you dismiss my replies that specifically address your claims as allegedly off-topic. What gives?.

But those links in the previous post are to opinion polls on people's support for the idea of changing marriage to include homosexual partnership. You were arguing before that the term 'marriage' (or its foreign equivalent) are already in common use to refer to homosexual partnership. That is a different assertion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Well fair enough if you are talking about the social concept of marriage rather than the legal definition, then you may want to assert that marriage already refers to homosexual partnership, but that kind of assertion is hard to back up without a very time consuming and thorough study of contemporary language use; the types of study that the various English dictionary organisations use when deciding what new words to include for each new edition.

That might be so if one wants to establish the matter by the standards of evidence required to include a word in a dictionary. On the other hand, one can make proper probabilistic assessments based on less information. That's what I was doing.

I can provide the following pieces of evidence:

1. The recent referendum on same-sex marriage in Ireland. The "yes" vote won by a 62-38 margin. The debate seemed to be on whether to legally allow gay people to marry, not whether to allow gay people to have their relationships legally called "marriage" even if they weren't. Absent some widespread error (which you may want to argue for), it appears that the vast majority of the Irish voters use "marriage" in a way that includes same-sex relationships.

2. Generally, the language of mainstream media in the US - not partisan outlets, or clearly right-wing or left-wing outlets -, the UK, and Canada, and apparently Australia.

3. Anonymous opinion polls in all of those countries, in which there is from a majority to a vast majority supporting same-sex marriage. Again, it seems people aren't saying that they support legally calling some relationships that aren't marriages "marriage"; rather, they support allowing same-sex couples to get married. If it were only about legal benefits, you would expect support for similar same-sex unions, but not for same-sex marriage. That is not what polls show.

Granted, I'm not including countries in which English is used considerably, but is not the predominant language, such as Kenya, Tanzania, or Zimbabwe. Clearly, those would yield a very different result. But in those cases, the vast majority of people seem to be quite confused about what gay relationships are like - at any rate, I don't think usage in Australia would be non-negligibly influenced by usage in those countries.

Also, granted, this isn't conclusive evidence. But I said "very probably", qualifying my statement. As before, if you think those people are making some mistake and by their own usage of the word "marriage", same-sex relationships never qualify, I would ask for evidence of that - or if you have a different objection, I'd ask about it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

On the other hand, in the common social understanding, it is very probably false that in English, "marriage" means specifically heterosexual marriage. That's what I've been arguing, and that's what you've been dismissing. Do you see the pattern here? You continue to make claims about the common social understanding, continue to reply to them with evidence (which you do not provide), and you dismiss my replies that specifically address your claims as allegedly off-topic. What gives?.

But those links in the previous post are to opinion polls on people's support for the idea of changing marriage to include homosexual partnership. You were arguing before that the term 'marriage' (or its foreign equivalent) are already in common use to refer to homosexual partnership. That is a different assertion.

But those people are asked whether to legally allow gay people to marry, not whether to legally called some gay unions that aren't marriage "marriage"; If the people in question weren't disposed to call same-sex relationships aren't marriage, you would expect support for civil union with similar rights, but not for same-sex marriage - those options are regularly given in many polls too.

Anyway, let me try another angle: do you think that the people who voted for same-sex marriage in Ireland (or those who reply to the polls in question, etc.), do not call legal same-sex marriages "marriage"?
Further, do you think they wouldn't have called a same-sex marriage celebrated in Canada but not yet legal in Ireland "marriage"? It's far more likely that they would have said they supported their marriage to be recognized in Ireland?

 

[dystopian]

The Dutch word for marriage is 'huwelijk'. Etymologically it can be traced back to pre-christian Proto-Germanic traditions; and in that sense specifically refers to a dancing ritual that was practiced when people entered a union. It makes no explicit reference to being between a man and a woman; that is a definition that was added only *later* and of course then removed again.