Gay marriage in Australia

[Metaphor]

I am not trying to deny them a right. I am objecting to their usurping of a tradition that does not belong to them.

Who owns a tradition? Did you personally invent marriage? If not, why do you believe you have a right to 'own' it, and prevent others from participating?

The problems are that:
1. It gives them access to legal rights to adoption which I don't think they deserve

What makes someone 'deserve' adoption, and why does no homosexual couple deserve it?

2. The underlying political agenda is to use the hijacking of the marriage label as leverage to get society to view homosexuality as normal when I think it is not normal; it is a defective manifestation of the human sexual instinct.

You have it exactly the wrong way around. Homosexuals and their allies could not conceivably 'hijack' marriage without already having majority support.

3. If it really is just about legal rights then amendments can be made to selected bits of legislation to extend the rights in that legislation from married couples to homosexual partnerships. But it is about more than legal rights. It is about the political goals of a minority.

That is eye-bleeding nonsense. 'Selected bits of legislation'? You cannot believe the words you've typed.

At the end of the day homosexuals are doing quite well just getting society to accept and tolerate their behaviour within certain limitations.

Yes, better that homosexuals are reminded of what the proper moral reaction is -- to execute them. There are countries that still do that, I'm sure you'll be glad to hear.

Obviously we see homosexuality in different ways.

You see it as a normal expression of human sexuality and I don't. Science cannot tell us yet who is right but one day it probably will be able to provide a causal explanation of homosexuality.

Why would a causal explanation (or the absence of one) matter?

The icky argument is that the vast majority of society is heterosexual and heterosexuals find homosexuality icky. We now tolerate homosexuality but that is not to say that we want it rammed down our throat (for want of a better metaphor). In return for tolerance and legal protection homosexuals could be reasonable about it and keep their business discreet. That is my honest view despite how jarring it might sound in the current politically correct atmosphere. Political correctness isn't simply about a majority view; it is about a false agenda being pushed to assert the notion of equality as an abstract political goal even though the things being compared are not equal.

If anything is rammed down people's throats, it's heterosexuality. You can't pick up a book or turn on the television without relentless reminders of it.

 

[dystopian]

I am not trying to deny them a right. I am objecting to their usurping of a tradition that does not belong to them.

Yeah, just like those black people usurping the tradition of eating in the same restaurants as whites. That tradition does not belong to them!

The problems are that:
1. It gives them access to legal rights to adoption which I don't think they deserve

So... you're not trying to deny them a right... but you don't think they deserve legal rights to adoption and that's why they shouldn't be allowed to marry... but you're totally not denying them rights.

2. The underlying political agenda is to use the hijacking of the marriage label as leverage to get society to view homosexuality as normal when I think it is not normal; it is a defective manifestation of the human sexual instinct.

Who gives a shit what you think? Society already views it as normal. Get over it already.

Political correctness isn't simply about a majority view; it is about a false agenda being pushed to assert the notion of equality as an abstract political goal even though the things being compared are not equal.

Oh, is THAT what it is? Gee, glad you cleared that up for us.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Same old same old assertions in place of evidence, whining in place of arguments.

We now tolerate homosexuality but that is not to say that we want it rammed down our throat (for want of a better metaphor). In return for tolerance and legal protection homosexuals could be reasonable about it

By 'reasonable' you mean 'live within the limits of mojorising's prejudice.

Exactly how many people in the world choose someone else's prejudice as the reasonable limits to tehir equality, mojo?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I am not trying to deny them a right. I am objecting to their usurping of a tradition that does not belong to them.

The problems are that:
1. It gives them access to legal rights to adoption which I don't think they deserve
2. The underlying political agenda is to use the hijacking of the marriage label as leverage to get society to view homosexuality as normal when I think it is not normal; it is a defective manifestation of the human sexual instinct.
3. If it really is just about legal rights then amendments can be made to selected bits of legislation to extend the rights in that legislation from married couples to homosexual partnerships. But it is about more than legal rights. It is about the political goals of a minority.

At the end of the day homosexuals are doing quite well just getting society to accept and tolerate their behaviour within certain limitations.

Obviously we see homosexuality in different ways.

You see it as a normal expression of human sexuality and I don't. Science cannot tell us yet who is right but one day it probably will be able to provide a causal explanation of homosexuality.

The icky argument is that the vast majority of society is heterosexual and heterosexuals find homosexuality icky. We now tolerate homosexuality but that is not to say that we want it rammed down our throat (for want of a better metaphor). In return for tolerance and legal protection homosexuals could be reasonable about it and keep their business discreet. That is my honest view despite how jarring it might sound in the current politically correct atmosphere. Political correctness isn't simply about a majority view; it is about a false agenda being pushed to assert the notion of equality as an abstract political goal even though the things being compared are not equal.

What I don´t understand is why you insist on dragging in laws in this. Laws don´t teach people what to believe. The point of laws is to make society work smoothly. If gays want to get married, then they should be allowed to, regardless of how many people think they shouldn´t. Because that´s what laws are for. Gays being allowed to marry legally has zero bearing on other people´s opinion on gay marriage. It´s a non-factor.

 

[fromderinside]

The icky argument is that the vast majority of society is heterosexual and heterosexuals find homosexuality icky. We now tolerate homosexuality but that is not to say that we want it rammed down our throat (for want of a better metaphor). In return for tolerance and legal protection homosexuals could be reasonable about it and keep their business discreet. That is my honest view despite how jarring it might sound in the current politically correct atmosphere. Political correctness isn't simply about a majority view; it is about a false agenda being pushed to assert the notion of equality as an abstract political goal even though the things being compared are not equal.

Really? Did you heard this, say, in about the third grade? I have never told this story without those to whom I spoke saying: "I heard that in the third grade".

So, just in case you're virgin to a google like degree here's the story so you won't ever have to say 'icky" again.



The Queen said: "If I had balls I would be King."

Hearing that the King declared: "Fuck the queen."

A mighty battle ensued.

the winner, we call him the lucky bastard, stormed into the Queen's chambers found her lying on her stomach.

He commanded: "Roll over Queen. The King declared you be fucked."

The Queen answered: "I shall not roll over and be fucked."

"If you don't you shall be corn holed." said the lucky bastard.


Now do you think such would be said to anyone on the playground in the third grade if butt fucking were not common place?


Not icky. Titillating and funny though.

 

[atrib]

I am not trying to deny them a right. I am objecting to their usurping of a tradition that does not belong to them.

The problems are that:
1. It gives them access to legal rights to adoption which I don't think they deserve
2. The underlying political agenda is to use the hijacking of the marriage label as leverage to get society to view homosexuality as normal when I think it is not normal; it is a defective manifestation of the human sexual instinct.
3. If it really is just about legal rights then amendments can be made to selected bits of legislation to extend the rights in that legislation from married couples to homosexual partnerships. But it is about more than legal rights. It is about the political goals of a minority.

At the end of the day homosexuals are doing quite well just getting society to accept and tolerate their behaviour within certain limitations.

Obviously we see homosexuality in different ways.

You see it as a normal expression of human sexuality and I don't. Science cannot tell us yet who is right but one day it probably will be able to provide a causal explanation of homosexuality.

The icky argument is that the vast majority of society is heterosexual and heterosexuals find homosexuality icky. We now tolerate homosexuality but that is not to say that we want it rammed down our throat (for want of a better metaphor). In return for tolerance and legal protection homosexuals could be reasonable about it and keep their business discreet. That is my honest view despite how jarring it might sound in the current politically correct atmosphere. Political correctness isn't simply about a majority view; it is about a false agenda being pushed to assert the notion of equality as an abstract political goal even though the things being compared are not equal.

You are yet to tell us why homosexuality is harmful. You want to stop homosexuals from enjoying the rights you enjoy based simply on your personal distaste for homosexual behavior. I find your bigotry offensive and harmful to society and want to remove your right to procreate and to speak freely on this matter so you are not able to propagate your hateful ideas that harm society through intolerance and discrimination. Should I be allowed to curtail your rights because I find your behavior to be icky? Unlike you I can also demonstrate that your intolerant ideas can and do cause harm to actual humans (homosexuals).

 

[mojorising]

If gays want to get married, then they should be allowed to, regardless of how many people think they shouldn´t.

Lots of people want lots of things. It does not follow that everyone should get what they want.

Homosexuality is distasteful to the heterosexual vast majority. However, we tolerate homosexual partnership and we offer legal protection from historical abuse. This should be enough and indeed homosexuals should be grateful for our tolerance and they should reciprocate by curtailing their activities within limits that minimise the offence caused to society. This is a perfectly reasonable position.

Homosexuality is in all likelihood a defect in the development of the sexual instinct. It is not analogous with being black or being a woman. It is reasonable for society to treat homosexuals differently because their behaviour is incongruous with the natural order. It is not reasonable for us to punish them or make them suffer for something that is not their fault and the fact that we have recognised this is commendable and society can rightly regard itself as having matured by increasing the level of tolerance and expanding the circle of empathy.

The homosexual political campaign for marriage redefinition is an understandably selfish human desire to try and gain as much advantage in society as possible but it is misguided and takes advantage of the currently warped sense of worship that humanity has for the notion of 'equality' regardless of how much merit any particular claim for equality actually has.

 

[Ford]

Homosexuality is distasteful to the heterosexual vast majority.

As in the entire thread, you've assumed that your own personal distaste is shared by the "vast majority."


We get it. You spend all your time focusing on the icky gay sex. This is your problem, and there's no reason to have laws tailored to your own weird obsession with how other people have sex.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If gays want to get married, then they should be allowed to, regardless of how many people think they shouldn´t.

Lots of people want lots of things. It does not follow that everyone should get what they want.

Yes, quite. I can't wiggle my nose and cast spells, therefore gays should not get married... Really? This is your defense?

Homosexuality is distasteful to the heterosexual vast majority.

Evidence for this bullshit?
And even if true, some logical reason to restrict marriage equality from them because of the distaste? I find it distasteful, but i don't think that my personal feelings are sound reasons to discriminate against others.

However, we tolerate homosexual partnership and we offer legal protection from historical abuse. This should be enough

You say it and say it and say it and say it and say it and say it and say it and say it and say it and say it and say it and say it and say it and say it and say it and it still doesn't mean shit, legally.

You offer no precedents of anyone else stopping their quest for equality because they have 'enough' without that.

and indeed homosexuals should be grateful for our tolerance and they should reciprocate by curtailing their activities within limits that minimise the offence caused to society. This is a perfectly reasonable position.

You use 'reasonable' in a strange way.
Show the logic supporting this 'reasonable' conclusion.
I don't think you have a reasoning path to this position.

Homosexuality is in all likelihood a defect in the development of the sexual instinct.

Prove this to be true.
Or even likely.
Or, if true, worth a shit in the discussion of rights.

It is not analogous with being black or being a woman.

No, it's analogous to being treated inequally due to being different...

Just like blacks, like women, like various nationalities, like various religions, like various castes....

It's exactly as logical.

You're bigoted, and claim there's a rational basis for your feelings.



NO one's buying the bullshit, mojorising.

It is reasonable for society to treat homosexuals differently because their behaviour is incongruous with the natural order.

Not according to people who research nature.

It is not reasonable for us to punish them

But it IS, in your mind, a reason to treat them as less-than-equal citizens.

Or in other words, to punish them.

The homosexual political campaign for marriage redefinition is an understandably selfish human desire to try and gain as much advantage in society as possible

This bullshit claim is just fucking retarded, mojorising.
It would be less retarded if ONLY gay people were on the side of 'redefining' marriage to include same-sex partnerships.
But i support it, though i gain nothing from it. Many straight people do.

So it's not a selfish desire.
it cannot be dismissed as a selfish desire.

You're wrong.

Just fucking wrong.

 

[mojorising]

And even if true, some logical reason to restrict marriage equality from them because of the distaste?

Equality is like some mantra that is mindlessly chanted by the pro-homosexual lobby without stopping to question whether it is a valid quest.

Mentally ill people have almost the same human rights as everyone else but they do not have the right to vote because we deem that their disability disqualifies from that right.

I would say that homosexuals should have most of the human rights that other folk have but not the right to get married as their condition disqualifies them. Indeed since marriage has traditionally been defined as being the union of a man and a woman, their attempt to lay claim to this institution could even be seen to be somewhat abstruse.

 

[Ford]

And even if true, some logical reason to restrict marriage equality from them because of the distaste?

Equality is like some mantra that is mindlessly chanted by the pro-homosexual lobby without stopping to question whether it is a valid quest.

Mentally ill people have almost the same human rights as everyone else but they do not have the right to vote because we deem that their disability disqualifies from that right.

I would say that homosexuals should have most of the human rights that other folk have but not the right to get married as their condition disqualifies them. Indeed since marriage has traditionally been defined as being the union of a man and a woman, their attempt to lay claim to this institution could even be seen to be somewhat abstruse.

So being gay is a mental illness?


And since gay people are mentally ill they shouldn't be considered fully human.


You're quite a piece of work.


Or alternately, you yourself are delusional...so by your own arguments you should have fewer rights.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Lots of people want lots of things. It does not follow that everyone should get what they want.

You are a case in point.

Homosexuality is distasteful to the heterosexual vast majority.

According to the ABS 65% of all Australians consider that homosexuals should be able to marry. That rots my socks, I thought the figure was higher. It still means that the majority do not see eye to eye with you.

Perhaps in Uganda.

Homosexuality is in all likelihood a defect in the development of the sexual instinct.

Homosexuality is in all likelihood a response to hormonal conditions in the womb during certain stages of brain development. If that turns out to be the case then it can be regarded as a reaction of the species to its environment, in much the same way that more boys are born during wartime. Homosexualty may well be mother nature's way of saying "You need to cut down on the breeding for a while, but you still need intelligent, productive people." I would love to see your support for the argument that homosexuals are mentally ill or aren't fully human. There isn't much factual material outside your imagination.

All your talk of tolerance just appears as the output of someone who needs to feel superior to some group.

It would make more sense if you denied marriage to the irreligious. They do change the definition of marriage from its accepted Christian meaning.

You can't play the history card. Same sex marriage is not unknown in history and it has even been accepted within religions in some times.

Have a good look at your need to create Us and Them situations. Your world will be happier.

 

[dystopian]

Mentally ill people have almost the same human rights as everyone else but they do not have the right to vote because we deem that their disability disqualifies from that right.

W-what? Mentally ill people don't have the right to vote in Australia? What the actual fuck? That is a pretty huge fucking violation of basic human rights.

 

[bilby]

Mentally ill people have almost the same human rights as everyone else but they do not have the right to vote because we deem that their disability disqualifies from that right.

W-what? Mentally ill people don't have the right to vote in Australia? What the actual fuck? That is a pretty huge fucking violation of basic human rights.

Don't worry; like most of what he says, this claim has little relation to reality.

All Australian citizens over the age of 18 have not only the right, but the duty to vote (and may be fined if they fail to enrol, and/or fail to vote, without lawful excuse).¹

The only Australian citizens over the age of 18 who may not vote are those who²:

• are in prison serving a sentence of three years or more
• are of unsound mind (incapable of understanding the nature and significance of voting);
• have been convicted of treason or treachery and have not been pardoned.

Mentally ill persons in Australia, including psychiatric in-patients who have not been convicted of an offence incurring a three year or longer custodial sentence, can only be prevented from voting if it can be shown that they are incapable of understanding the nature and significance of the act of casting a vote.


¹http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Enrolment.htm#disability
²https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/publications/right-vote-not-enjoyed-equally-all-australians

 

[mojorising]

You offer no precedents of anyone else stopping their quest for equality because they have 'enough' without that.

It is not about 'equality' though. It is homosexuals wanting to gain access to the marriage tradition for political purposes to further the cause of homosexual rights. It is a calculated play to advance the power of an already very vocal minority which already has adequate rights and legal protection.

Equality has to be the most worn out euphemism of the 21st century. It is like a magic spell to any political cause. If you can apply the word 'equality' to the title then the cause becomes cloaked in moral goodness, regardless of how flaky the political goals actually are.

The cause you are arguing for is homosexual marriage, not marriage equality.

They cannot be equal because homosexuality and heterosexuality are very different things.

Marriage is very explicitly a heterosexual institution and it is very far from obvious that there is any reasonable argument that it should be redefined when alternative legal solutions to the practical needs of homosexuals exist.

Equality is not something that should be applied always in all cases to everything. Old people are treated differently, young people are treated differently, women are treated differently, people from other cultures are treated differently. That is because they ARE different. Homosexuals are also different to heterosexuals in significant ways and offering them legal alternatives to marriage is a valid and reasonable option.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And even if true, some logical reason to restrict marriage equality from them because of the distaste?

Equality is like some mantra that is mindlessly chanted by the pro-homosexual lobby without stopping to question whether it is a valid quest.

Motherfucking hell, Mojo, I am DIRECTLY ASKING you for a reason to think it's not a valid quest.
What do you offer? Tradition, appeals to popularity, appeals to an invisible majority, and lies about the opposing side.

Mentally ill people have almost the same human rights as everyone else but they do not have the right to vote because we deem that their disability disqualifies from that right.

Okay. You restrict their right because they're demonstrably unable to meet your high standards of ability.

This would make sense in restricting gay rights IF and ONLY if you could actually show that gays are physically or emotionally UNABLE to raise kids.

Not just your fears about it.

I would say that homosexuals should have most of the human rights that other folk have but not the right to get married as their condition disqualifies them.

Again, who gives a shit until you can actually SHOW there's a problem, not just fear that there is.

Indeed since marriage has traditionally been defined as being the union of a man and a woman, their attempt to lay claim to this institution could even be seen to be somewhat abstruse.

This is a teensy bit bullshit, as there are plenty of unfit parents out there RIGHT NOW who at least have a complementary pair of genitals.

If you're not taking children away from straight couples who may or may not be, some day, found guilty of child abuse, then this is just a made-up strawman fiction for your bigotry.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You offer no precedents of anyone else stopping their quest for equality because they have 'enough' without that.

It is not about 'equality' though. It is homosexuals wanting to gain access to the marriage tradition for political purposes to further the cause of homosexual rights.

You know, even if this is true, this is NOT justification for withholding basic equality.

It is a calculated play to advance the power of an already very vocal minority which already has adequate rights and legal protection.

Who the fuck gives you the right to decide what 'adequate' is?

Equality has to be the most worn out euphemism of the 21st century.

Sorry to trouble you with it.
You've heard the word so much you think it's fair to NOT share it with people, for the reason that you've heard appeals to equality too much.

Fuck that.

If you can apply the word 'equality' to the title then the cause becomes cloaked in moral goodness, regardless of how flaky the political goals actually are.

Flaky?
Marriage equality is not 'flaky?'

My Nothing, you're getting desperate. just keep flailing around, maybe one of your arguments might work. Fingers crossed, eh?

The cause you are arguing for is homosexual marriage, not marriage equality.

Now YOU'RE throwing a semantic argument back.

They cannot be equal because homosexuality and heterosexuality are very different things.

Once goddamned more, mojo, the question is not whether or not the sexual preferences are equal.
It's about discriminating against PEOPLE. Individuals with the trait are equal, or should be equal, in the eyes of the law. You offer no objective reasons to continue to discriminate against the PEOPLE involved.
Even your language discriminates against the TRAIT.
Traits don't have rights.

Motherfucking seriously. It's not about leftHANDEDNESS or rightHANDEDNESS, it's about a reason to discriminate against LEFTHANDED PEOPLE.

And you offer fuck-all as a justification.

Marriage is very explicitly a heterosexual institution

Not anymore.

and it is very far from obvious that there is any reasonable argument that it should be redefined when alternative legal solutions to the practical needs of homosexuals exist.

Sure, there's a reasonable argument.
The argument is: It's BEEN redefined. Shut the fuck up or show any actual cause for that to be changed back.

Equality is not something that should be applied always in all cases to everything.

You're offering platitudes.
Any particular reason to isolate equality IN THIS ISSUE?

Old people are treated differently, young people are treated differently, women are treated differently, people from other cultures are treated differently. That is because they ARE different.

Seriously? What rights do young people lose for getting older? What rights do immigrants not get because they are from another culture? You're just making shit up.

Homosexuals are also different to heterosexuals in significant ways

Just none you've been able to identify that have an impact on the issue.

and offering them legal alternatives to marriage is a valid and reasonable option.

No, it's not valid.
'Separate but equal' is still not equal. It's further discrimination.
And you want this EXACTLY to continue to discriminate. Don't pretend otherwise.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Homosexuals are also different to heterosexuals in significant ways .

You know, I've asked several times for a list of the differences.

Maybe you missed the post where I asked, if we had gender-neutralized transcripts of a married couple at home with their kids for a week, what would you look for in the discussions that would tell you if it was a gay male couple, a gay female couple, or a straight couple.

You have made some appeals to children needing both halves of a two-gender couple to raise them, but then you completely ignored discussion about just how many children are in households that don't meet the Hollywood stereotype. Or showed any justification for the claim kids 'need' such a setting.

And you want to divide parenting into the 'women's work' and 'men's responsibility' camps, but missed the chance to defend such sexism in the face of challenges.

But anyway, what's the significant difference, mojo? Can you share them with us? Without looking like a sexist or a terminal nostalgist, at the same time, that is?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You offer no precedents of anyone else stopping their quest for equality because they have 'enough' without that.

It is not about 'equality' though. It is homosexuals wanting to gain access to the marriage tradition for political purposes to further the cause of homosexual rights. It is a calculated play to advance the power of an already very vocal minority which already has adequate rights and legal protection.

Ah, adequate rights and legal protections. What a noble ideal to strive towards. Like how a bus gets you to your destination even when you have to sit at the back or how it's totally illegal for someone to smack you around and rape you unless it's your husband. You have some rights, so what's with all the complaining?

When separate but equal is too much to ask for, just ditch the equal part.

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>
Equality is not something that should be applied always in all cases to everything. Old people are treated differently, young people are treated differently, women are treated differently, people from other cultures are treated differently. <snip>

In what relevant way? Please provide a list of current Australian laws that treat women or people from other cultures differently.

You may refrain from offering a Hindu or Muslim guest beef or pork respectively as a considerate host, but that's not a relevant difference unless you can find it codified in law. You may keep the door open for a woman or refrain from making certain jokes in their presence, but that's again not the relevant kind of difference unless you find laws about it.