I sat down to watch Insight last night out of a keen interest over the issue of same-sex marriage. I was feeling very positive about the introduction of the Civil Unions Act in the ACT, and a perceptible shift in social attitudes towards same-sex couples in Australia (despite the Prime Minister’s own revolting attitude on the issue).
As it turned out, I couldn’t sit through the whole show uninterrupted. I found myself getting incredibly upset and angry at the bigoted and discriminatory attitudes displayed by members of the audience who were anti-same-sex marriage. I yelled at the television, I switched channels on several occasions in order to calm down, and I generally got quite worked up.
One of the most frustrating features of their arguments, was something that MrLefty has already summed up quite nicely:
Whenever a direct question was put to the conservatives – ie, “this is an example of the way the laws discriminate against gay and lesbian couples – are you in favour of this?” – they refused to answer it, instead immediately diverting off on an irrelevant and stupid “if you look at the tradition of marriage, it’s about a man and a woman raising a child” rant.
Then there was the horrible John Heard who yelled over the top of people and made ridiculous sweeping statements to the effect that since he (as a gay man) didn’t want to get married, no one else should have the right to do so. He also made the typical mistake of equating gay men with all same-sex attracted people (as though women simply didn’t exist), since all his so-called facts related only to gay men.
Of course, the debate focused almost exclusively on the crap argument of “But, what about the children?” As if these hate-filled ranting lunatics really cared about the well being of children. The thing was that no one seemed capable of providing any evidence to support their claims that there was any risk to children from being raised by two people of the same gender.
For goodness sake, in a era when so many heterosexual marriages fail, and children are caught up in messy divorces, domestic violence situations, and shuttled between foster parents, state care and dysfunctional families – who are rarely provided with anywhere near-adequate government support – why are these people focusing on the children of loving couples who happen to be of the same gender? Furthermore, as John Stanhope argued last night – the two issues should not be conflated. People have children out of wedlock all the time (be they heterosexual or otherwise), and there is nothing about marriage per say that automatically generates babies.
The central issue in this debate is discrimination and a fundamental recognition of human rights. Why should a minority group within our society be treated as second-class citizens just because some narrow-minded intolerant people don’t like the idea of gay sex? Currently people in same-sex relationships are treated like crap in our country. Regardless of the length of their relationship and the decisions that they make in terms of sharing finances and supporting each other, if one of them dies the other has no rights to their superannuation. Instead it goes into the ether, and the other partner is left with the debts that they have accrued together. That is crap. To add insult to injury, they are not given any legal rights in relation to funeral arrangements, or decisions over their partner’s health if they are in a critical state in hospital.
If a same-sex couple raise a child together, only the one that is biologically related to that child is given any legal rights over them. If something happens to the relationship or the biological parent, the other parent has no legal rights to that child even if they have raised them from birth.
The list of discriminatory practices goes on and on, but another significant one is, of course, marriage. When I wanted to formalise my relationship with P, when I wanted my family to take part in a cultural ritual that would help them to understand that he was now part of the family and a permanent part of my life, I was able to get married. It was an incredibly special day for me. We wrote vows to each other and signed a legal marriage certificate, which formalised our relationship before our family and friends, before god, and under the law. We then had a big celebration and people made beautiful speeches about us and our relationship. We shared a meal and cake, and then we all danced. I will never forget the day.
Why on earth should anyone be denied the right to participate in such a ceremony simply because the person that they have fallen head-over-hells for happens to be of the same gender as them? It is so unfair that it makes my blood boil.
Cross-posted at two peas, no pod.
It’s American, but this is from the Annapolis hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage.
Senator: “Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?�
James Rasins, professor of law at American University: “Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.â€?
So there.
Does Labor have a policy on this?
Besides the moral arguments for allowing same sex marriages, surely the discrimination against superannuation payouts needs to be addressed asap.
what a ridiculous buffoon that John Heard sounds like. His arguments as you note seem to be
1) the majority of male gays don’t want gay marriage. therefore the rest shouldn’t have it
and even more ridiculous is his argument about adoption
2) children who are adopted by gays will be made fun of in school, therefore we shouldn’t allow gays to adopt children.
the logical implication of which 100 years ag would be
’society disapproves of mongrelisation. therefore interracial couples shouldn’t have children’
what a fucking Roy Cohn wannabe.
When the Prime Minister introduced the change to the Marriage Act in 2004 to specifically limit the definition to the ‘union between a man and a woman’ Labor supported the change and stated that it would ensure that the Superannuation Act was changed to ensure that same-sex couples would be able to inherit their partner’s superannuation. To date, Labor has does absolutely nothing to act on this promise.
Thank you Jason – bloody good point.
Of course primary school kids can be cruel, but that is a particularly crap reason to justify discrimination – particularly since it is that very discrimination that feeds into the prejudice displayed by the children.
the thing about kids being teased is such nonsense. the general conservative argument is this:
“Any difference is bad because kids will tease others who are different, therefore we should not allow or encourage differences.”
maybe instead of such idiotic logic they should encrouage a slightly less uptight society, one that teaches their kids how to respect and deal with difference in ways that do not work to eradicate it. A good example of this on a cultural level was the furore over the ‘two mums’ on playschool. Either work on giving kids appropriate tools for living in today’s world or shut up, no one wants to hear a conservative’s lament about the ‘lost world’.
On another note regarding reproduction. COnservatives again fail to comprehend that technologies have intervened in reproduction for a long time. From pseudo-scientific measuring and mystical analysis of reproduction cycles to the socio-technical systems of marriage, these are all technologies that affect the ‘natural’ sexual reproduction capabilities of the human animal.
I wish someone could tell me why allowing gay marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage. I just down understand why. I don’t feel that my marriage is under threat because Bob and Ted or Jan and Alice want to get married.
“…since all his so-called facts related only to gay men”
The ‘Private Lives Report’ also surveyed same sex attracted women. You can read a copy of this robust, independent research here:
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/
As for point 2 of Jason’s comment, I’ve never said anything of the kind.
Similarly, point 1 is not an accurate paraphrase of my argument. It’s not that ‘gay marriage is unpopular, and therefore it must be bad’, rather ‘gay marriage’ is bad and it is therefore unpopular, even with SSA men and women.
I give concise reasons for rejecting ‘gay marriage’ here:
http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2006/05/dreadupdate-sbs-insight-john-heard-gay.html
And a longer, more philosophical set of arguments here:
http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/118/10544/1024/johnheard.jpg
You might disagree with me, but try to engage with my actual arguments.
(…unfortunately, I cannot respond to comments posted here – you are welcome to direct them to DREADNOUGHT or send me an email)
The big question not being addressed in all of this, it seems to me, is the question of divorce.
There’s no question that marriage laws should be reformed to recognise same sex relationships, but shouldn’t there be reform across the board, or would existing laws cover the field?
Thoughts anyone?
I am not quite sure what you mean Christine. What are you referring to in relation to divorce? If you mean access to the Family Court, then this is still provided to same-sex couples.
In relation to the other points of discrimination, more than just the Marriage Act would need to be amended to fix all the issues. Some issues are covered by State legislation, and by-and-large these points have been dealt with (or are currently being dealt with). However, many of the issues are covered by Federal law and the Commonwealth has explicitly sought to ‘cover the field’ in many of these issues – most obviously through its amended definition of marriage under the Marriage Act.
As Mindy said.
Although I think the answer lies in a particular book that Luke mentioned in his earlier post.
‘I wish someone could tell me why allowing gay marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage.’
When you tell us why allowing homosexuals to marry won’t lead to the same specialised pleading of those who want to marry many wives or perhaps Tiddles the cat. In the meantime we’ll keep a sacred and iconic institution of monogamous heterosexual marriage the way it is. That’s not to say many can’t live up to the ideal, but an ideal it is and it is proven as the best paradigm for child rearing. Whenever it fails we see the tragic personal and social fallout all too often. I don’t expect the socially restless will ever understand that. However their self-indugence in all forms of outlandish social and cultural experiments is more often than not a recipe for human misery. Try the streets of Alice Springs for starters, but you’ll find similar among feral white suburbs full of 2nd and 3rd generation single mums to multiple fathers. Your right that some things make your blood boil.
oops… You’re
The reason it’s impossible to understand how gay marriage could ‘destroy’ the institution of marriage is that there is no reason. The people who argue this are not capable of thinking logically, at least not on this issue. What they’re doing is projecting their own anxieties and insecurities — much in the same way that the same kinds of people want to maintain ‘border control’ in other ways, keeping the Other off ‘their’ territory, both literally and metaphorically.
(And this is OT, sorry, but speaking of border control, there’s a very funny piece on the Bush/Mexico thing here at Creek Running North.)
Observa, you’re weird, dude.
I agree with PC – you will not find common ground with dogmatists if you argue from reason. If you take individual rights seriously the rationale for some sort of recognised union seems to me to be inescapable. Civil marriages have long been available for unions that have not been countenanced by the various churches (e.g. divorcees and mixed-faith) – why should a secular state bow to religious feeling in this instance?
‘I agree with PC – you will not find common ground with dogmatists if you argue from reason’ That’s because dogmatists like you can’t argue the case with reason- eg my question on polygamy or Tiddles the cat. Some things are simply beyond ‘reason’ like marriage itself. It is really an inherited and time honoured iconic institution, which defies easy logic, but nevertheless is intuitively appealing to us all, not least some homosexuals.
The issue with tearing up time honoured institutions and social mores, is not so much the effect on the mainstream, but the powerful deleterious impact the message has on the margins of society. For example, the message that marriage and having children out of wedlock didn’t really matter, was not problematic for middle class kids. They had ample evidentiary examples all around them that these things did. That was not the case for the margins of society and look at the results after a couple of generations.
Observa raises a good question in his otherwise nonsensical post.
If gay marriage ought to be allowed because it should not be for the majority to prevent two individuals (of whatever sex) from marrying one another, on what basis would proponents of gay marriage oppose bigamy involving three or more consenting adults? I can’t think of one – which is disturbing on a personal level because I have no problem with gay marriage but bigamy is just plain creepy.
Yo.
Weird. You’d think observa would have heaps to say on the Ayaan Hirsi Ali thread.
Instead, he’s over here saying the poor can’t be trusted. Oh, and that “some things are beyond reason”. They would be articles of faith I suppose.
Weird, dude.
Homer to Marge, on choosing a name for their first born: “We can’t name him Larry. All the kids will call him Larry-Warry.”
Observa, I enjoy the vinegar you inject into these discussions and have agreed with your posts more than once. Polygamy and bestiality are illegal in this country, homosexuality is not. I can’t see how extending some basic legal protections to a lawful relationship sends the wrong message to anyone.
As I understand it, the policy behind the prohibition on polygamy was less about the immorality of such relationships and more on utilitarian (e.g. property) grounds. Maintaining second households has never been uncommon. I trust the policy on bestiality does not require a detailed exegesis.
What glen said.
The conservative logic that modern reproductive technologies (presumably IVF) are a violation of the natural order is just stupid luddism. Either they should be available to everyone who’s willing to take the shot (success rates are very low) or they shouldn’t. The dynamics of modern families are changing with modern bio-medicine – and I’m not just talking about reproductive technologies but genetic ones too. These can’t be ‘undiscovered’ so we should deal with them sensibly.
Observa, you’re not only weird, you’re also not nearly as clever as you think you are.
Tiddles the cat can’t marry anyone, because she can’t hold a pen in her paw to sign a contract – any contract. As for polygamy – well, if you can’t tell the difference between 2 and more than 2 then anything else I say is probably wasted. But if you are actually interested, then read this.
Let’s face it, gay men and lesbians could hardly be more rubbish at marriage than hetero couples.
50% failure rate, and its a sacred institution “specially” for them.
Talk about rewarding failure – yet another prime example of the state propping up bludgers and no-hopers.
Zoe, not even the greatest men of science believe they can find logical answers to all life’s mysteries. Faith is a funny thing. Some people have faith that if you give welfare handouts to the poor, that will fix their problems and their kids. Some had faith that ATSIC, the Dreamtime and self-determination would improve the aboriginal’s lot. Now that’s what I call faith beyond reason.
Bismarck,
You’ve completely dodged the implicit question on bigamy by drawing a nonsensical distinction.
Having sex with more than one woman at a time, or with alternating women, is not unlawful. Gay sex is not unlawful. Bigamy, however, is unlawful and gay marriage is unlawful.
If three or more consenting adults want to enter into a marriage, why should they be prevented by the majority from doing so? What is it about the nature of gay marriages that makes it more deserving of human rights recognition than bigamous marriages?
“tearing up time honoured institutions and social mores”
I don’t see how you can really saying gay marriage is doing that … more like a longstanding cultural institution be adapted to adapting to a modern set of values.
Observa you’re just not making sense, for all the reasons pointed out above by Zoe, PC, Bismark, Glen, dk.au, Anna and Lefty Elitist.
“Dreadnought” I have no desire to engage in a discussion with you over at your site. While your reasons seem slightly more thought-out than Observa’s, they are still incredibly selective in the facts that they seek to incorporate and fundamentally illogical.
When you tell us why allowing homosexuals to marry won’t lead to the same specialised pleading of those who want to marry many wives or perhaps Tiddles the cat.
You’re kidding, right, observa?
Um, in the same way as allowing women to vote didn’t lead to the same specialised pleading of those who wanted to give the vote to space aliens and Tiddles the cat.
The “slippery slope” argument remains as stupid as it has ever been. If we’d followed it throughout history, black people would still be slaves, women would be owned by their husbands, and… well, maybe we wouldn’t even have left the caves.
Please. Is that the best you can do?
LE – superb!
I think people who aren’t EXPECTED to marry are ideal cantidates – they’ll only do it if they really really want to, not just because they’re about to squeeze one out.
and what a surprise to see the conservative slippery slope to hell being waved in our faces again.
The only catastrophe I can see looming is that gay people will get to enjoy messy divorces and custody disputes. With rights come responsibilities.
Yo-yo – you’re right that threesomes, menages-a-trois, etc, are not unlawful. However, Family Law is not about morality. It is about children and property. I suppose some sort of private contract could be formulated to formalise a menage, but a rule of general application would be horrendously complicated if it was to do equity to all participants and their children. That’s probably a good enough reason to put it beyond the pale of the Marriage Act.
“If three or more consenting adults want to enter into a marriage, why should they be prevented by the majority from doing so?”
Good question. How does it harm any existing marriage between 1 man and 1 woman to have 3 people, whether it’s 3 men or 3 women or 2 men and 1 woman, etc get married?
Anna, Muslim countries are quite well adapted legally to polygamy and with cultural relativists everywhere, the slippery slope argument is all poweful. That is something the cultural relativists here at LP understand only too well, but are choosing to slip and slide out of here. And do I think it possible some Pomo judge sometime would find some old spinster’s heart felt plea that Tiddles has ’spoken’ to her about them marrying? Err, umm do I really have to answer that?
I’ve been around long enough to be a conservative in these things. I’m also a fan of the natural, which is why I shudder at IVF and eugenics. I can understand why many homosexuals embrace this brave new world of designer babies for all, conveniently packaged and on time. However, just remember, there may come a time when the Perfect Outcomes Clinics can screen out those designer babies with certain ‘undesirable’ traits and characteristics. That is something I personally do not look forward to and neither should you.
So I take it that same sex marriage would be perfectly acceptable in Wingnut World as long as it was polygamous same sex marriage?
I take it then, observa, that you didn’t read the post I linked to.
Arguments about whether polygamy is a good or bad thing are happening, and will continue to happen. But they will happen on their own, and there are not nearly enough common characteristics for it to automatically happen just because we allow same-sex marriages.
But there really is no point arguing with someone who fears that judges may one day rule that Tiddles the cat has spoken, and has consented to marriage.
*Newsflash*
Prenatal genetic testing is already here. It’s possible to test a fetus for down’s syndrome, for example, but it won’t show the severity of the disability. It could be anywhere from no physical impairment and normal IQ to severe handicap and very low IQ.
“If three or more consenting adults want to enter into a marriage, why should they be prevented by the majority from doing so?�
Can ANYONE answer this? Becuase I can’t figure out how anyone else’s plural marriage hurts a couple’s heterosexual marriage.
“Why should a minority group within our society be treated as second-class citizens just because some narrow-minded intolerant people don’t like the idea of gay sex?”
Cristy, that’s crap, and you know it. The most common reasons given for opposing gay marriage centre on “dilution”, viz marriage being inherently about procreative-sex and/or child-rearing. These “anti” reasons refer to public, not private conduct (i.e. no sane person surely has issues with what consenting adults might do in bed.)
As it happens, I’m a gay man, but a gay marriage agnostic, as I prefer to term it (spot the raised-as-Catholic). I support full financial equality (again, who wouldn’t?), but am personally squeamish about going the full marriage “montyâ€?. By “squeamishâ€? I mean in both the personal and theoretical senses (i.e. re my opinions on *others*, gung-ho about getting married, “rights” to do so). This is a difficult area: aka “Who am I to be telling gays that they *shouldn’t* have the right to get married?”
To which I can only answer: (i) I am not putting things that emphatically (look up “agnostic”, if you still don’t get it), and (ii) the personal is the political (to invoke an old chestnut from feminism’s golden years). That is, sorry to all you poofs and dykes who feel otherwise, but marriage just ain’t my bailiwick. All I want from the straight world is freedom from their sexual prurience and from their financial discrimination. Otherwise, they owe me nothing, and vice versa.
See also:
http://paulwatson.blogspot.com/2006/05/gay-marriage-revisited-again-q-what-do.html
Civitas, I suggest you read this too. It’s a very good exploration of the issue.
I am aware we’re well on the way dk.au and we might ask ourselves why we didn’t address that slippery slope much sooner.
Civitas- You might well ask yourself how does it harm anyone if we give away Sociology degrees to allcomers. You know how it is. It’s not bloody fair that everyone can’t have one
Even Tiddles!
It’s a simple question, Anna and one that is asked frequently about gay marriage itself, if marriage between two gay people doesn’t harm anyone’s hetero marriage, then how does marriage between more than 2 people harm anyone’s hetero marriage? It’s a fair question.
That’s the spirit Anna. Whatever turns you on and stop hogging the bong!
The most common reasons given for opposing gay marriage centre on “dilution�, viz marriage being inherently about procreative-sex and/or child-rearing.
Then heterosexuals who are infertile or past childbearing age shouldn’t have the right to marry either.
Civitas, I gave you a serious answer. I directed you to a very serious, and very well-written philosophical exploration of the issue. If you can’t be bothered reading it, then don’t expect anyone here to dumb down a response just to compensate for your laziness.
Fair enough Paul; there are reasons other than a distaste for gay sex. However, as you yourself seem to recognise – just because you are not inclined to get married, why would you want that right denied to others? I am not advocating for marriage itself – I don’t care whether or not people choose to get married. What I am advocating for is for legal equality with regards to making such a choice. I oppose the idea of anyone being forced to get married and I oppose the idea of anyone being denied the option – to me, they are two sides of the same coin: the equal right to choose.
The dilution argument is just silly. Marriage is quite clearly not about procreation these days, regardless of what people may want it to be. People have sex and children outside of marriage and other people get married and never have sex. That being the case, demanding that the couple in question be capable of making babies with each other during their legal union as a criterion for marriage is absurd.
“If three or more consenting adults want to enter into a marriage, why should they be prevented by the majority from doing so?�
Frankly I don’t care and I don’t think that it is relevant to the argument about same-sex marriage.
civitas, marriage between more than 2 people harms those people. It’s amazing that you can’t see the distinction.
Then heterosexuals who are infertile or past childbearing age shouldn’t have the right to marry either.
Well no, because infertile hetero couples could easily adopt and therefore “child-rear”. But for me personally, the issue isn’t child-rearing. Certainly people in plural marriage rear as many if not more children than others. Looks at mormons.
“Civitas, I gave you a serious answer. I directed you to a very serious, and very well-written philosophical exploration of the issue.”
The link does not answer the question as to how a plural marriage harms anyone else’s hetero marriage.
It doesn’t.
It harms the people within a plural marriage.
Oh, and us homos aren’t allowed to? Why?
In fact, Anna, not only does your link not answer the question, it doesn’t even address the question.
Just to explain how having procreative-sex (as opposed to gay sex) is “public� – it’s to do with marriage’s ancient origin in fertility rituals. If that’s too old-hat (or insufficiently Catholic-orthodox) for you, then there’s the exquisite metaphysics of groups vs entities theory (SJ Stoljar, Groups and Entities: An Enquiry into Corporate Theory (ANU Press, Canberra, 1973).
Put simply: is “Grinspoon� (a rock band) or “the Nguyen family� grammatically singular (= a group), or plural (= an entity)? My preferred answer to both it that it depends on the band, or family, but that *generally speaking*, gay families (particularly when they are childless couples) are most accurately described as groups, rather than entities. (Meanwhile, in case you’re interested, gay rock bands are best described as straight-admixtures (viz the kick-ass Scissor Sisters) or if not, as shit.)
I don’t know what the laws in Australia say about adoption by gay couples, Kim.
It varies from state to state, civitas.
But my question was one in principle.
“It doesn’t.”
I agree. So let’s dispense with that as a reason to say that gay marriage must be acceptable, simply because it doesn’t harm anyone else’s gay marriage. It’s often used as an argument in favor of legalizing gay marriage.
ooops, sorry make that “doesn’t harm anyone else’s hetero marriage”
“If three or more consenting adults want to enter into a marriage, why should they be prevented by the majority from doing so?�
They’re not in some cultures other than our own. The Judaeo-Christian cultural norm – which we’ve inherited – is two, though people have created their own unofficial arrangement variations on that theme since time immemorial. Our notions about “falling in love” – viewed as a rather bizarre precursor to marriage in some societies and a relatively recent innovation in our own – are about two people rather than a whole room and poofs and dykes are no less susceptible to this sort of romanticism, civitas.
If you think it’s a goer get a law change lobby going
“Our notions about “falling in loveâ€? – viewed as a rather bizarre precursor to marriage in some societies and a relatively recent innovation in our own”
good point
“- are about two people rather than a whole room and poofs and dykes are no less susceptible to this sort of romanticism, civitas.”
what about 3 people, that’s not a whole room.
“If you think it’s a goer get a law change lobby going
”
No, I don’t think it’s a goer at all.
Civitas, I don’t think you even know what you are asking, making it quite difficult to address you.
The people who are lobbying for gay marriage rights are not arguing that “gay marriage doesn’t harm heterosexual marriage, therefore we should allow it�. The opponents of gay marriage are saying that it does harm hetero marriage, therefore we should ban it. Advocates for gay marriage rights are simply rejecting that claim. It isn’t the basis of their argument.
“The people who are lobbying for gay marriage rights are not arguing that “gay marriage doesn’t harm heterosexual marriage, therefore we should allow itâ€?.”
Mindy does just that at 10:54am
“I wish someone could tell me why allowing gay marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage. I just down understand why. I don’t feel that my marriage is under threat because Bob and Ted or Jan and Alice want to get married.”
And it’s a fair question. But it’s also a fair question as to plural marriage.
As a libertarian I’m quite happy to sanction plural marriages but one thing at a time …:-)
Civitas, if you don’t think bigamy is a goer then why you so het up about it? But if actual bigamists want to get the issue up then I’m not going to oppose them any more than I’m going to oppose gay marriage.
Meanwhile let’s deal with the issue which is actually live now. Methinks bigamy is not going to be on the agenda for about another 176 years.
That quote just proves what I just said, civitas. Mindy’s challenging the claim that it does harm straight marriage.
“Mindy’s challenging the claim that it does harm straight marriage.”
No, she’s asking for someone to explain to her how it harms hetero marriage. And it’s a fair question. In relation to gay marriage as well as plural marriage.
Seems to me the issue is really quite simple. Cristy quotes Anonymous Lefty:
Civitas, I take it that you do. You just aren’t articulating any valid argument in favour of discrimination. That we also discriminate against other people on other grounds is not a valid such argument.
What always amuses me about arguments that appeal to the sanctity or received nature of the social institution of marriage, is that they ignore all forms of marriage except the current Western version – i.e. heterosexual, supposedly exclusive, and for the purpose of procreation. Anybody who’s studied an introductory anthropology unit will know that there are and have been many societies in which a much wider range of arrangements are perfectly legitimate – and indeed in some circumstances demanded by their laws.
While people are of course entitled to their opinions about marriage, they should be expressed as such, rather than dressed up in fallacious ’slippery slope’ arguments (e.g. Tiddles the cat) or unsupported assertions (e.g. marriage between more than 2 people harms those people – how? why?).
My own opinion is that the opposition expressed by those who wish to deny same sex couples the legal equivalence of their unions that heterosexual couples can currently enjoy, is fundamentally an expression of homophobia – albeit dressed up in more acceptable terms such as concern for children’s welfare.
“Civitas, I take it that you do. You just aren’t articulating any valid argument in favour of discrimination.”
I’m not articulating arguments for or against anything. I’m asking a question.
Cristy,
Another terrible dodge. Your post clearly frames the debate around questions of human rights. You said: “The central issue in this debate is discrimination and a fundamental recognition of human rights. Why should a minority group within our society be treated as second-class citizens just because some narrow-minded intolerant people don’t like the idea of gay sex?”. I’m just trying to figure out whether your view on same-sex marriage is based on any discernable principle or whether it is based on your personal preferences. So far, it’s looking rather like the latter.
Kim,
I’m intrigued by this notion that polygamy harms the people who practise it. A very ‘we-know-best’ attitude that one. The fundies reckon same-sex marriage harms those who practise it too, you know.
You just don’t seem to know what question you’re asking.
Here it is again: If three or more consenting adults want to enter into a marriage, how does it harm anyone’s hetero marriage for them to do soâ€?
“If three or more consenting adults want to enter into a marriage, why should they be prevented by the majority from doing so?”
Yo-yo, I agree with your rhetorical question – I don’t think they should be prevented.
If two men or two women want to have their relationship recognised by the state, then great, I see no problem with the relationship being recognised.
Can’t stand people through the state wanting to influence/control other people’s lives.
“kick-ass Scissor Sisters” who did a great cover of comforably numb on a recent chillout sessions, although at first I couldn’t stand it!
“Here it is again: If three or more consenting adults want to enter into a marriage, how does it harm anyone’s hetero marriage for them to do soâ€?
It doesn’t, per se – there are lots of societies where polygamy is practised as well as coupledom – but our sociocultural norm is two and apart from you no-one seems to be querying it.
That’s two consenting adults rather than a consenting adult and Tiddles the cat.
“It doesn’t, per se – there are lots of societies where polygamy is practised as well as coupledom – but our sociocultural norm is two and apart from you no-one seems to be querying it.”
Is the sociological norm being two enough of a reason to discriminate against 3 people who want a legal commitment through marriage? Our sociological norm is a man and a woman marrying, yet that doesn’t seem to carry weight with people who want legalized gay marriage. If it’s not enough to derail that case, how can it be enough to derail the plural marriage issue? And others on this thread have asked the question as well as others in our society.
I assume you meant to put a question mark there…
Answer: It doesn’t, but that isn’t enough reason in itself to allow it; and if it did it wouldn’t necessarily be enough of a reason to disallow it.
But it isn’t the reason that we think gay people should be allowed to get married. It is, however, a stupid and erroneous reason to oppose it.
But you knew all of this already, and you are just trying on a trick that has been tried many times before. You are trying to conflate the issues of gay marriage and polygamy in order to somehow “taint� the former, then feigning outrage when you are called on it.
The arguments about Superannuation on death and child custody on death don’t really hold water. Simple and effective estate planning solve both these issues.
Superannuation – the majority of funds accept Death Benefit Nominations, with many having binding death benefit nominations. The Testator instructs his Superannuation Trustee to pay Death benefits into his/her estate (note that the Will cannot instruct the Trustee what to do). The Will needs to then instruct the Executor to pass any proceeds from Superannuation payments to the beneficiaries of their choosing.
Guardianship (not as clear on this as the super stuff!) – A will can instruct on preferred Guardianship of minors. Testamentary trusts are good vehicles for providing for minors and retaining control of assets.
If you are an adult and you don’t have an up to date will then you are a bloody idiot and don’t derserve to have your wishes taken into account when you pop your cloggs.
Disclaimer: This is general advice, seek professional advice for yourself . . yada yada yada. . .
Next!!
Super is taxed at a higher rate when left to someone who isn’t a spouse or de facto partner.
Cristy, Anna Winter and Kim are engaging in the worst of dodges.
The original post clearly frames the debate around questions of human rights. You said: “The central issue in this debate is discrimination and a fundamental recognition of human rights. Why should a minority group within our society be treated as second-class citizens just because some narrow-minded intolerant people don’t like the idea of gay sex?�.
What Civitas is trying to do is get to the underlying rationales behind your views. He’s trying figure out whether your view on same-sex marriage is based on liberty or human rights, or whether it is based on your personal preferences. So far, it’s looking rather like the latter.
I’m particularly intrigued by Kim’s notion that polygamy ‘harms’ the people who practise it. A very ‘we-know-best’ conservative attitude that one. The fundies reckon same-sex marriage harms those who practise it too, you know. I suppose these things happen when you’re not weighed down by principle.
For the record, I reckon the fact that same-sex marriage between consenting adults is recognised at law is outrageous.
“Answer: It doesn’t”
FINALLY!
“but that isn’t enough reason in itself to allow it; and if it did it wouldn’t necessarily be enough of a reason to disallow it.”
I agree.
“But it isn’t the reason that we think gay people should be allowed to get married.”
Who is “we”? Mindy used this very point above as I have indicated already.
I don’t want to marry anyone. I just want some nice fishies and a warm lap.
Razor, can you will your superannuation to anyone you wish or does the legal spouse always get some %?
But Tiddles, I love you!
I can change. No, really.
A couple of poofs and a labrador isn’t a family.
Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.
Richard Gere, will you marry me?
Gay “marriage” won’t destroy one’s individual marriage (a real convenant), it will only make it meaningless in society at large. But really, can we expect advocates of traditional marriage to illuminate the effects of gay “marriage” before the cause?
Because gay “marriage” is built upon a non-discrimination and individual “rights” foundation, it is bound to buckle to those same forces lest it be every bit as discriminatory and intolerant as the institution is reckoned to redefine.
If opposing sexes is no longer a relevant criteria on which the state defines and then sanctions “marriage” then by what criteria can one define “marriage…?” Numbers within the union…? Dicriminatory! Relatedness within a union…? Intolerant!
Gay “marriage” only stands a chance of public acceptance if it embraces the solid foundation IT MUST BE BUILT UPON, namely, traditional marriage. Instead, it has labeled this institution as a discriminatory and intolerant institution while looking to redefine “marriage” to serve a radically small minority.
“My own opinion is that the opposition expressed by those who wish to deny same sex couples the legal equivalence of their unions that heterosexual couples can currently enjoy, is fundamentally an expression of homophobia”
Oh dear gorgonzola. Not the old ‘If you aint homoeuphoric you must be homophobic’ line. It may come as a complete shock to you to realise that some of us wouldn’t recognise a poof if we fell over one on the wrong side of the rope at the Mardi Gras. However 4 blokes, 2 sheilas, whole football/netball teams or whatever walking down the aisle to get hitched, just don’t feel right mate(probably polyphobic). Mind you, neither does the current rate of divorce among heterosexual couples, or certain antics of married spin bowlers, but for some it’s all a bit of a giggle and of little import. Unfortunately it’s almost always at someone’s expense in my experience.
Any cock and cunt can make a baby and subject it to unspeakable and irreversible torment, in or out of wedlock. Children are simply NOT THE ISSUE (except in the literal sense!)
The issue is:
Infertile heteros can marry legally.
The mentally ill can marry legally.
Convicted murderers can marry legally.
Retards can marry legally.
Violent bastards can marry (their victims no less!) legally.
Gay people can marry the opposite sex and live a destructive lie legally.
A gay couple can spend decades demonstrating the depth and enduring nature of their union, yet cannot marry legally.
In short, the “sanctified and society-defining institution of marriage” is subjected daily to horrendous abuse by heteros. Let’s give the homos a turn.
Discuss.
Homosexual “marriage” is an utter absurdity, and no end of mockery is in order both for the concept and the people who practice it. The fact that nobody in any culture outside the most decadent and demographically stagnant fringes of the West accords the slightest legitimacy to this nonsensical movement is a testament to how completely alien the entire homosexualist agenda truly is.
Nevertheless, there is no real reason to my mind why it should be outlawed. I’ve perused all the arguments over the last couple of years, and I just can’t seem to find any good ones for actually banning homosexual “marriage”, even if I tend to agree with John Heard’s general mindset. There is no evidence that homosexual “marriage” violates the Harm Principle, for instance.
The question is, how do we go about withdrawing unnecessary government interference in the private lives of homosexuals? In fact, the best approach to my mind is not to extend the recognition of “marriages” by the government, as this would only legitimise homosexual “marriage” while further entangling all households in burdensome regulation, but rather to withdraw from all interference in private contracts all together. This could mean, as it is often denoted, the “privatisation of marriage”.
http://www.slate.com/?id=2440
“If opposing sexes is no longer a relevant criteria on which the state defines and then sanctions “marriageâ€? then by what criteria can one define “marriage…?â€? Numbers within the union…? Dicriminatory! Relatedness within a union…? Intolerant!”
Good point. Straight people cannot marry absolutely anyone they want to, close relatives for example, or people of the opposte sex who are already married. What compelling interest does the state have in prohibiting such marriages? Is this not as discriminatory as prohibiting plural marriage?
PK: what’s a family?
How does a “family” relate to marriage?
“Oh dear gorgonzola. Not the old ‘If you aint homoeuphoric you must be homophobic’ line. It may come as a complete shock to you to realise that some of us wouldn’t recognise a poof if we fell over one on the wrong side of the rope at the Mardi Gras.”
you DO have a way with words, observa
I also think a fantastic tradeoff for the privatisation of marriage, and by necessity the legalisation of the ridiculous idea of homosexual “marriage”, would be the parallel abolition of all anti-discrimination laws – like anti-homosexual “marriage” laws, these are a massive imposition against property rights and freedom of association.
Sacha the “labrador and poofs” line is attributed to PJK and I mentioned it out of smartarsery alone.
Anna Winter, it used to be that way but it it all changed.
Superannuation Death Benefits received by a ‘dependant’ are tax free up to the Pension Reasonable Benefit Limit ($1,297,886) and taxed at 47% above that. And with no RBLs in the future there won’t be any excess to be taxed.
What is a dependant? From 1 July 2004 a dependant also includes any person with whom the person has an interdependency relationship.
Briefly, two persons (whether or not related by family) have an interdependency relationship if:
- they have close personl relationship;
- they live together;
- one or each of them provides the other with financial support; and
- one or each of them provides the other with domestic support and personal care.
(Ref: CCH Master Superannuaion Guide 2004/05)
This concession was won by the Democrats and cheered by the Gay lobby.
Civitas,
You can’t Will your superannuation to anybody. The Trustees are not subject to direction from the Will. They can only act in accordance with the Trust deed. They pay out depending on any death benefit nominations they have and what they think are in the best interests of the beneficiaries.
The legal spouse does not always have to get some. It may be the case that the spouse is bypassed in favour of children for tax reasons. If they have seperated but not divorced and a new partner is in a dependency relationship then the legal spouse might be cut out (although a good lawyer would fight that). The trustees may have been instructed to pay benefits on death to the estate and the Will covering the Estate has excluded the wife.
Zoe – ahh
have to disagree with PJK on that.
I saw him once in trousers and a shirt doing renovs on his little place in challis av.
“It may come as a complete shock to you to realise that some of us wouldn’t recognise a poof if we fell over one on the wrong side of the rope at the Mardi Gras.”
It would be no less a shock than finding you falling over a poof on the wrong side of the rope at Mardi Gras, Obs. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Me too Sacha. He had such lovely irresistable legs I bounced right up and tried to … let’s not go there.
One thing I can’t work out, apropos the homosexualist “marriage” movement, is whether it is of libertarian origin or a Communist trojan horse. What is it that they really want? Do they wish to reduce the government’s control over their own lives? Or do they want to coercively extend the government’s control over everyone else? For example, will the next step be to introduce legislation mandating that all religious institutions conduct homosexual “marriage” ceremonies against their will, in flagrant violation of the right to freedom of association? Do they want national anti-homosexual vilification laws? Do they want the government to ramp up tax-aggression against business in order to fund homosexualist propaganda campaigns?
Of course, they are never really clear on this point, but I firmly suspect that this is what they are really about. They would probably like to abolish private property and freedom of association, and force every church in the country to tear up their doctrine and support homosexual “marriage”, on pain of closure, and to arrest anyone who disagrees with their Communist anti-private property agenda.
Zoe’s good with the smartarsery
“They would probably like to abolish private property and freedom of association, and force every church in the country to tear up their doctrine and support homosexual “marriageâ€?, on pain of closure, and to arrest anyone who disagrees with their Communist anti-private property agenda.
”
Well, DDDUUUUH, Steve. I read all about that on the John Birch Society website just a few months ago. Get with the program, Tinfoil Man.
You forgot the flouridation of ice-cream, Steve. Children’s ice-cream!
That’s the way your hard-core commie thinks.
“Of course, they are never really clear on this point, but I firmly suspect that this is what they are really about. They would probably like to abolish private property and freedom of association, and force every church in the country to tear up their doctrine and support homosexual “marriageâ€?, on pain of closure, and to arrest anyone who disagrees with their Communist anti-private property agenda.”
Meds, Steve, meds.
“Sacha the “labrador and poofsâ€? line is attributed to PJK and I mentioned it out of smartarsery alone.’
It was “two blokes and a cocker spaniel.’ Labs are usually lesbian.
I used to know a guy called Steve Edwards in Perth who loved to play the right-wing strawman at parties, just to stir the pot.
Is this him again, or do you honestly believe in a homosexual communist conspiracy trying to tell the churches how to practice religion?
What a nutty theory.
Geoff you are completely correct. Derr me.
I think he’s actually become the Strawman, FDB!
I, too, have encountered our tin-foil hat wearing friend
; )
Round where I live there are lots of little white fluffy dogs, not many cocker spaniels.
“Round where I live there are lots of little white fluffy dogs, not many cocker spaniels.”
Ah yes. The ubiquitous Maltese Terrier! Also known as the Darlo Pitbull.
Tis I alright!
As I said, I’m not decided as to the true origins of the homosexual “marriage” movement – and of course, that doesn’t affect the desirability of privatising marriage in the slightest. I’m just trying to “project the lines” as Robert Welch, the sensible founder of the John Birch Society, used to put it. Predict what move they are going to make next, an’ all.
It could certainly be a Communist movement (and most probably is), but I confess to being unable to show any evidence for this right now. Let’s call it an educated guess. I’d put $50 on a Communist-inspired homosexual “marriage” movement.
Morganzola wrote:
“Anybody who’s studied an introductory anthropology unit will know that there are and have been many societies in which a much wider range of arrangements are perfectly legitimate – and indeed in some circumstances demanded by their laws”.
Quite. I don’t think that too many people are arguing against a plurality of “arrangements” for close human relationships. So in a century or so, assuming that the long-term gay couple thing really takes off in the West from about now, we’ll have a sui generis, anthropologically-recognised thang. The law should then rubber-stamp this, if such seems needed.
In the mean time, gays who want to make 2106’s anthropology textbooks should busy themselves with the theory and practice of building a type of customary relationship from scratch. And hint: starting with the m-word to describe it is a false-start, at best.
I think Steve is on to something here. Just take a look at Stalin’s moustache and tell me you don’t see that on every third man on Oxford St
http://isurvived.org/Pictures_iSurvived-2/2Stalin.GIF
“Infertile heteros can marry legally.
The mentally ill can marry legally.
Convicted murderers can marry legally.
Retards can marry legally.
Violent bastards can marry (their victims no less!) legally.”
Yes they can because it is a union between a man and a woman, their other pecadillos are not the point.
I support state recognition of gay marriage in the same way I support retard marriage, murderer marriage, violent marriage ie as long as it is to somebody of the opposite sex.
Define homophobia how you want but be careful because if you want to label a lot of people homo-phobes you are providing some very nasty people camouflage with your own bullshit.
I don’t support state sanctioned same sex marriage. Denial of a dying person access to their loved life partner and denying validation and grieving of that partner at the funeral is about being an arsehole. It’s not about marriage or the state. The money stuff is an accounting issue.
Let’s remember that the gay “marriage” movement is headed up by a radically small cadre of strict homosexuals and those that identify with their ideology. Homosexuals being defined as those solely sexually attracted to the same sex with an associate aversion to sexual intimacy with the opposite sex.
It is absolutely amazing that such a small minority could have such inexplicable influence in completely redefining societal institutions based on such hollow arguments as non-discrimination and individual “rights.” It’s even more inexplicable when we are led to believe that homosexuals are unfairly discriminated against even though as a demographic they are highly educated and financially successful and OBVIOUSLY wield incredible societal power.
Yo-yo:
Yes it is based on a discernible principle and it was one that I explicitly mentioned in my post: Human Rights. The right to equality. I have not argued against this same right being applied to any other group. Instead I have argued that this diversionary tactic is quite irrelevant.
Do you have any real questions?
Razor:
Your first point will only benefit some people with particular funds – and generally these will be lump sum pay-outs, not a pension such as the one drawn on by Commonwealth Public Servants.
Your second point says very little. The law does not obligate anyone to follow any instructions in your will with respect to Guardianship where the person nominated in not considered to by your next-of-kin. You could, however, obtain a share parenting order from the Family Court in some situations.
Steve Edwards:
It is legal in Canada.
“strict homosexuals”
Just thought I’d copy and paste that one in case you missed it. Brought back some memories for me I have to say.
“I think Steve is on to something here. Just take a look at Stalin’s moustache and tell me you don’t see that on every third man on Oxford St”
That was many style changes ago, Jason. You sure you’re not confusing them with maltese terriers?
“Let’s remember that the gay “marriageâ€? movement is headed up by a radically small cadre of strict homosexuals and those that identify with their ideology. Homosexuals being defined as those solely sexually attracted to the same sex with an associate aversion to sexual intimacy with the opposite sex.”
I’m not sure what a “strict homosexual” is but as far as I can see it’s more about guys who love guys and girls who love girls believing that their primary affectional lifetime relationships are no less worthy of legal validation than those of heterosexuals. Personally, I tend to share Paul Watson’s take on poofs and marriage but I’m in absolutely in no doubt that the relationship I share with my partner is every bit as real and worthy of legal recognition as James Hamilton’s.
Not sure I’m disagreeing with you Geoff. I certainly hope not.
But back to being facetious for one more moment before going home (sole occupier, just as an aside), this exchanged also cracked me up:
Steve Edwards:
“The fact that nobody in any culture outside the most decadent and demographically stagnant fringes of the West accords the slightest legitimacy to this nonsensical movement is a testament to how completely alien the entire homosexualist agenda truly is.�
Christy:
“It is legal in Canada.”
I wouldn’t make marriage between these two illegal per se but I’m not sure it would be wise. Then again what would I know, really.
A strict homosexual is one who has a sole sexual attraction to the same sex PLUS a sole associate aversion to intimacy with the opoosite sex.
To claim that gay “marriage” is the simple pursuit of equality and fairness is to be oblivious to the staggering reality that a
A strict homosexual is one who has a sole sexual attraction to the same sex PLUS a sole associate aversion to intimacy with the opoosite sex.
To claim that gay “marriage� is the simple pursuit of equality and fairness is to be oblivious to the staggering reality that a
A strict homosexual is one who has a sole sexual attraction to the same sex PLUS a sole associate aversion to intimacy with the opoosite sex.
To claim that gay “marriage� is the simple pursuit of equality and fairness is to be oblivious to the staggering reality that a less than 1% radically strident homosexual cadre is the main impetus behind the push for gay “marriage.�
How such a supposedly historically-oppressed super minority could have gained such influence is truly inexplicable? How we have been convinced that a highly educated and financially successful super-minority with the ability to change long-standing institutions is oppressed and discriminated against is another mystery?
Sorry for those other 2!
“a highly educated and financially successful super-minority”
Wow … why didn’t someone tell me that before. Now I can pay the car repair bill and finish my PhD dissertation (although I guess I have to do some tertiary studies first).
I can’t claim to speak for the pro-gay marriage lobby, only myself. I do think the argument that allowing gay marriage will hurt the institution of marriage is crap and have never heard a convincing argument otherwise.
I think allowing gay couples the same rights as hetero couples when it comes to estates, adoption etc is very important. But I also think that if a gay couple want to get married because it means a lot to them then they should be able to. Just as hetero couples have the option of living together or getting married so should gay couples. If you don’t want to do it, don’t, but if you do you should have the option. Just my opinion.
Mindy,
It’s not that gay “marriage” will hurt the institution of marriage, but rather, it will abolish the institution of any societal meaning. What is the institution of marriage if gay “marriage” redefines that institution?
In what way, thordaddy. Same sex marriage would have its own meaning for those who choose to participate in it. Just as hetero marriage can have its meaning. People ascribe different meanings to it now anyway. For some it has a religious valence. For others it doesn’t. For some communities, parents should have a big say. For others, it’s about love primarily. If you think any social institution has only a singular meaning, you should think again.
Mark,
Your exactly right. Marriage will have no discernible meaning to the society-at-large. It will simply be whatever the individuals of that particular society will it to be.
Im with Liam – the word “societal” should be banned. Along with “problematise” and “critiquing”.
*shudders*
So what then is the problem, thordaddy?
I await a convincing argument about how the institution is central to the norms and values of society as presently constituted.
Mark,
The problem as I see it is a very avaricious radical minority pining for what is seemingly a meaningless victory using any unsavory means to achieve its ends.
I mean, if the institution of marriage is in such disrepute or at minimum meaningless to society at large, why are the advocates so adamant in legalising gay “marriage?”
This seems like nothing more than, “I want it therefore I should get it.”
Why are the radicals so intent on proving to us how “normal” they are by simply defining everything we’ve come to know as “normal” out of existence? It doesn’t work.
That wasn’t really an argument that it’s central to society, thordaddy.
Normality is overrated.
He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature. – George Bernard Shaw
Too true, thordaddy. No-one should get they want unless the majority wants them to have it, or until they have grovelled enough to please the powers that be.
I was going to try and add something sensible here, but it seems the thread’s gone beyond that. Maybe when blog threads get this long it’s unreasonable to expect participants to have read all preceding comments, but it’s a bit tiresome to have to try and backtrack for the sake of those like thordaddy (et al) who seem to miss the point that it is their perception of “marriage” that is the problem. For those of us with a broader perspective of humanity the likely advent of same-sex marriages becoming legitimate in our society is both obvious and inevitable.
As Mark points out above, “marriage” has many meanings even within the dominant culture here. I’d add to that the observation that these meanings have been, and continue to be, constantly renegotiated as our culture and society change over time. And that’s empirical fact, rather than Pomo mystification.
As for me, my lovely partner and I have a very open relationship with each other and our golden retriever, horse, chooks and ducks. None of us are married to each other, and as far as I’m aware only two of us have sex… actually, the chooks and horse sometimes get a bit rampant, but fortunately not all at once. At such times my partner, I and the retriever tend to avoid the paddock.
Mark,
I haven’t argued that traditional marriage is central to society. I only argued that gay “marriage” will necessarily define any notion of traditional marriage out of existence. It seems the final nail in the coffin, does it not?
Zarquon,
I don’t think “[n]ormality is overrated” if the issue at hand in the normalization of homosexuality. The attempt to deligitimize traditional marriage and heterosexuality itself by a radically-powerful minority should strike anyone as at least highly peculiar?
Anna,
If the gay minorities want gay “marriage” then work to get legislation passed and let the American people vote on it. Don’t cherrypick some friendly state legislation and judiciary and expect to redefine the institution of marriage based the oligarchy of some state Supreme Court.
This “why not 3 people” quasi-argument from civitas REALLY annoys me, because it’s so dishonest.
We’re discussing gay marriage. What is relevant to the argument are the pros (fairly obvious – equality for gay people) and cons (incredibly weak when compared with the serious consequences of discrimination on the people involved).
What is not relevant is what it might conceivably mean to some other issue.
Civitas’ question – “should 3 people be allowed to get married?” is fundamentally irrelevant. The only reason it would be relevant would be if he could draw the link to gay marriage, and use it as an example to highlight something that is wrong about polygamous marriage that is also wrong about gay marriage.
I can’t think of anything that fits that definition; if he can, it’s his job to bring it to the argument. Otherwise, the whole thing’s irrelevant. Because there may be things which are bad about polygamy; BUT if they’re not also bad about gay marriage, then they’re not an argument against gay marriage. And if they ARE bad about gay marriage, then why bring polygamy into it at all? Why not simply lay those charges against gay marriage? LAY THE CHARGES HONESTLY, MAN.
That he doesn’t just highlights the disingenuousness of the question. All he’s trying to do is draw a couple of illogical links; gay marriage is a bit like polygamy (in that it’s not heterosexual marriage)… there are some bad aspects to polygamy (although he isn’t specifying what precisely they are)… THEREFORE gay marriage is also bad.
Or, just as logically – my table has four legs… my cat has four legs… therefore my table is a cat.
I trust everyone can see the massive flaw in his logic.
Surely you people have better things to do than argue with the likes of thordaddy. What a waste of time.
“I only argued that gay “marriageâ€? will necessarily define any notion of traditional marriage out of existence.”
Too true. As soon as gay marriage is legalised, when I mention my wife, people will go “Your what? Never heard of one. What the hell are you talking about? Here, come and have sex with Tiddles.”
will you humans please stop taking my name in vain!
Hrrumph, this is so undignified.
You humans are such dirty minded little beasts, especially that weird dude called observa who brought my name into this in the first place …
I have read all the previous comments and except the homo who doesn’t want to be married, not one has said they know or have as friends, gays or lesbians. I can say civil union or partnership registration and it still doesn’t mean the same as marriage and I’m not talking church marriage. I mean the ceremony of marriage as a commitment of two people to each other, two people who love each other and want their families to recognize and celebrate their love.
I have lesbian friends, The Muriels.blogspot.com and I would like nothing better than to attend their wedding and see them become mothers. I see no reason for two very nice human beings not to show their love in this manner.
Lefty
The lamest of all reasons why same sex marriage should be allowed is the legalistic principle of discrimination. That crappy reason just turns people off.
There is no legal justification that disallowing gay marriage discriminates against people.
Try better reasons, like idea that it helps people feel more satisfied in a relationship or appeal to people’s higher sense generous spirit.
Same sex marriage is not a legal issue. It is a political issue because it needs the political arena to let it succeed.
JahTeh, I worked in the music industry for years, where gay couples are a dime a dozen, and I’m related by marriage to a beautiful same sex couple who have just had a child by IVF. More accurately, I’m related to one of the couple; the other one (and therefore the child also, who is the biological mother) legally has nothing to do with any of my wife’s family. Nonetheless the kid will spend half of its holidays with my wife’s extended family, receive presents and birthday cards from us every year, and hopefully love and trust us all as much as we will love and support him.
However if his natural mother dies, the default position of the law as it currently stands is that this is worth diddly-squat unless the biological mother’s family agrees that it is something worth preserving; had my wife’s cousin been a man, the law would have assumed that his support was needed. We are fortunate that all parts of the family see eye to eye, and conflict would be unlikely, but the law’s position appears ludicrous to all involved.
And thordaddy, to riff on my previous comment – since the single sex couple formed a number of years back now, there have been four marriages in the family, and no breakups. Each new and existing marriage has been celebrated wonderfully by all, including by the gay couple. No-one is in any doubt about what the marriages mean. People don’t forget to love each other, or forget that other couples do too, just because gay couples or marriages exist. Yours is a ludicrous argument.
Whether you like it or not, lefty, this is a big issue for people in terms of getting enough political support to make it through the political system.
Adding another layer of discrimatory laws etc. scares lot’s of people away.
Gay life is tolerated indeed accepted in the wider community these days, which is seachange from 20 years ago when poofter bashing was a national sport that even cops practiced for fun.
The misery those people lived through is intolerable to think about now.
Abortion is not as much a contentious issue here compared to the US because the law was changed in the political arena as against Roe vs Wade where a couple of Kirby look-alikes suddenly found a new dimension to the right to privacy. This finding managed to turn what was obviously a political/ conscience decision into the biggest friggin legal/political mess for 30 odd years.
The only way to succeed with gay marriage is to convince a majority of the voters that changing the act is a good thing. Pushing it through as a legalistic concept by throwing around legalisms (discrimination) is just gonna piss a lot of people off.
There is a legitimate concern here with respect to multiple partner marriage no matter how you try to spin it. That perception, rightly or wrongly is out there in the electorate at large, which has the effect of scaring people away from support. It would be far better to make the appeal as I mentioned above where in a certain way it makes the decision appear that we all made the decision for the best of intentions rather than legalistic crapola.
How about trying to promote it to the electorate by selling the good side of the concept and continue doing so? Or is that too hard?
A great example is the animal rights issue. PETA and their ilk have the effect of simply turning most people away. Appealing to people in a logical methodical way explaining why eating animal flesh is immoral has a far stronger effect on people’s attitudes. That method certainly affected my attitude as well as lot of other people I know-this despite PETA and the rest of the gaggle of idiots.
Are you up to it?
Lefty says
“Civitas’ question – “should 3 people be allowed to get married?â€? is fundamentally irrelevant. The only reason it would be relevant would be if he could draw the link to gay marriage, and use it as an example to highlight something that is wrong about polygamous marriage that is also wrong about gay marriage”.
That’s bulls lefty. Utah was only allowed into the union when they accepted the Federal deficntion of marriage.
It does create the political perception in the wider electorate that it could be opening up the floodgates whether you like it or not.
I don’t agree with JC that current laws are not discriminatory against gays. However I do agree with his tactical advice.
Yes, I agree on tactics as well, but I’m not sure that the battle isn’t being fought politically in Australia as opposed to America. I think because we need state legislation here, it has to be, and because our constitutional set up generally leaves little scope for rights claims to be hung on.
Having said that, often Labor state governments (as in Qld) will accord equal treatment while keeping quite about it so as not to cause controversy. I’ve always thought we’re better off with controversy – otherwise there’s still an element of the closet there.
Oh, and there’s the disgraceful record of the 2004 Labor Opposition and Nicola Roxon in giving the big tick to the unnecessary and offensive “defence of marriage” amendments to the 1965 Act.
You make some good points, JC, but MrLefty was speaking to readers of LP, not to the electorate in general. He was perfectly right to call people out when they use crappy arguments here.
But I do agree that focussing on the personal aspects – fairness and kindness – is the best approach when convincing the general population.
Lefty says:
“there are some bad aspects to polygamy (although he isn’t specifying what precisely they are)… THEREFORE gay marriage is also bad.”
I’ll specify them for you. They are very destructive to kids and lots of partners to the marriage, 99.99% females who get a bad deal. Here’s a piece I read detailing it:
Here’s a piece in Reason Mag explaining the terror or polygamy:
Current Reason mag.
One Man, Many Wives, Big Problems
The social consequences of polygamy are bigger than you think
Jonathan Rauch
“And now, polygamy,” sighs Charles Krauthammer, in a recent Washington Post column. It’s true. As if they didn’t already have enough on their minds, Americans are going to have to debate polygamy. And not a moment too soon.
For generations, taboo kept polygamy out of sight and out of mind in America. But the taboo is crumbling. An HBO television series called “Big Love,” which benignly portrays a one-husband, three-wife family in Utah, set off the latest round of polygamy talk. Even so, a federal lawsuit (now on appeal), the American Civil Liberties Union’s stand for polygamy rights, and the rising voices of pro-polygamy groups such as TruthBearer.org (an evangelical Christian group) and Principle Voices (which Newsweek describes as “a Utah-based group run by wives from polygamous marriages”) were already making the subject hard to duck.
So far, libertarians and lifestyle liberals approach polygamy as an individual-choice issue, while cultural conservatives use it as a bloody shirt to wave in the gay-marriage debate. The broad public opposes polygamy but is unsure why. What hardly anyone is doing is thinking about polygamy as social policy.
If the coming debate changes that, it will have done everyone a favor. For reasons that have everything to do with its own social dynamics and nothing to do with gay marriage, polygamy is a profoundly hazardous policy.
To understand why, begin with two crucial words. The first is “marriage.” Group love (sometimes called polyamory) is already legal, and some people freely practice it. Polygamy asserts not a right to love several others but a right to marry them all. Because a marriage license is a state grant, polygamy is a matter of public policy, not just of personal preference.
The second crucial word is “polygyny.” Unlike gay marriage, polygamy has been a common form of marriage since at least biblical times, and probably long before. In his 1994 book The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, Robert Wright notes that a “huge majority” of the human societies for which anthropologists have data have been polygamous. Virtually all of those have been polygynous: that is, one husband, multiple wives. Polyandry (one wife, many husbands) is vanishingly rare. The real-world practice of polygamy seems to flow from men’s desire to marry all the women they can have children with.
Moreover, in America today the main constituents for polygamous marriage are Mormons* and, as Newsweek reports, “a growing number of evangelical Christian and Muslim polygamists.” These religious groups practice polygyny, not polyandry. Thus, in light of current American politics as well as copious anthropological experience, any responsible planner must assume that if polygamy were legalized, polygynous marriages would outnumber polyandrous ones — probably vastly.
Here is something else to consider: As far as I’ve been able to determine, no polygamous society has ever been a true liberal democracy, in anything like the modern sense. As societies move away from hierarchy and toward equal opportunity, they leave polygamy behind. They monogamize as they modernize. That may be a coincidence, but it seems more likely to be a logical outgrowth of the arithmetic of polygamy.
Other things being equal (and, to a good first approximation, they are), when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don’t marry. When one man marries four women, three other men don’t marry. Monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage. Polygyny, by contrast, is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others.
For the individuals affected, losing the opportunity to marry is a grave, even devastating, deprivation. (Just ask a gay American.) But the effects are still worse at the social level. Sexual imbalance in the marriage market has no good social consequences and many grim ones.
Two political scientists, Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer, ponder those consequences in their 2004 book Bare Branches: Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population. Summarizing their findings in a Washington Post article, they write: “Scarcity of women leads to a situation in which men with advantages — money, skills, education — will marry, but men without such advantages — poor, unskilled, illiterate — will not. A permanent subclass of bare branches [unmarriageable men] from the lowest socioeconomic classes is created. In China and India, for example, by the year 2020 bare branches will make up 12 to 15 percent of the young adult male population.”
The problem in China and India is sex-selective abortion (and sometimes infanticide), not polygamy; where the marriage market is concerned, however, the two are functional equivalents. In their book, Hudson and den Boer note that “bare branches are more likely than other males to turn to vice and violence.” To get ahead, they “may turn to appropriation of resources, using force if necessary.” Such men are ripe for recruitment by gangs, and in groups they “exhibit even more exaggerated risky and violent behavior.” The result is “a significant increase in societal, and possibly intersocietal, violence.”
Crime rates, according to the authors, tend to be higher in polygynous societies. Worse, “high-sex-ratio societies are governable only by authoritarian regimes capable of suppressing violence at home and exporting it abroad through colonization or war.” In medieval Portugal, “the regime would send bare branches on foreign adventures of conquest and colonization.” (An equivalent today may be jihad.) In 19th-century China, where as many as 25 percent of men were unable to marry, “these young men became natural recruits for bandit gangs and local militia,” which nearly toppled the government. In what is now Taiwan, unattached males fomented regular revolts and became “entrepreneurs of violence.”
Hudson and den Boer suggest that societies become inherently unstable when sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females: in other words, when one-sixth of men are surplus goods on the marriage market. The United States as a whole would reach that ratio if, for example, 5 percent of men took two wives, 3 percent took three wives, and 2 percent took four wives — numbers that are quite imaginable, if polygamy were legal for a while. In particular communities — inner cities, for example — polygamy could take a toll much more quickly. Even a handful of “Solomons” (high-status men taking multiple wives) could create brigades of new recruits for street gangs and drug lords, the last thing those communities need.
Such problems are not merely theoretical. In northern Arizona, a polygamous Mormon sect has managed its surplus males by dumping them on the street –
literally. The sect, reports The Arizona Republic, “has orphaned more than 400 teenagers … in order to leave young women for marriage to the older men.” The paper goes on to say that the boys “are dropped off in neighboring towns, facing hunger, homelessness, and homesickness, and most cripplingly, a belief in a future of suffering and darkness.”
True, in modern America some polygynous marriages would probably be offset by group marriages or chain marriages involving multiple husbands, but there is no way to know how large such an offset might be. And remember: Every unbalanced polygynous marriage, other things being equal, leaves some man bereft of the opportunity to marry, which is no small cost to that man.
The social dynamics of zero-sum marriage are ugly. In a polygamous world, boys could no longer grow up taking marriage for granted. Many would instead see marriage as a trophy in a sometimes brutal competition for wives. Losers would understandably burn with resentment, and most young men, even those who eventually won, would fear losing. Although much has been said about polygamy’s inegalitarian implications for women who share a husband, the greater victims of inequality would be men who never become husbands.
By this point it should be obvious that polygamy is, structurally and socially, the opposite of same-sex marriage, not its equivalent. Same-sex marriage stabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by extending marriage to many who now lack it. Polygamy destabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by withdrawing marriage from many who now have it.
As the public focuses on a subject it has not confronted for generations, the hazards of polygamy are likely to sink in. In time, debating polygamy will remind us why our ancestors were right to abolish it. The question is whether the debate will reach its stride soon enough to prevent polygamy
from winning a lazy acquiescence that it in no way deserves.
*Author’s note: My wording left some readers under the impression that the modern Mormon church may endorse or practice polygamy. It does not. I should have made clearer that I was referring to certain people who claim to be Mormons, not to the church or mainstream practice.
Anna
I really think lots of conservatives could be “bought” on the issue of gay marriage. It was that kind of appeal that brought over to the idea of supporting it.
You know what? I remember years ago when seeing the movie Blaze about the remarkable career of Earl K. Long, the younger brother of that other remarkable Governor of Louisiana, Huey P. Long. Long, who was somewhat out of the ordinary for a Southern Democrat (just as Louisiana is out of the ordinary for a Southern State) was supporting a measure designed to aid Blacks on the floor of the state legislature and declaimed “Niggers is people too!”. I’d like to see someone from one of the major parties do something similar in Canberra. Full marks to backbench Liberal MP from Queensland, Warren Entsch, for having the guts to push civil unions for gays and lesbians at the federal level.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/equal-rights-bill-for-gays-on-cards-as-mps-revolt/2006/02/25/1140670304156.html
Oh, and here’s a link about Earl Long:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Long
I’m by no means convinced that polygamy is something we should encourage, but I wonder if it isn’t a little far-fetched to argue against it on the basis of the effects it has in societies where it is expected, rather than allowed.
That is, where women and men are, at least in theory, equal, and where marriages are generally entered into voluntarily and without too much pressure by family and community, would polygamy be the norm? I really doubt it would. So all this talk about all the poor men left on the shelf is misguided if only a tiny number of people take up the offer.
As with gay marriage, I doubt anyone will be converted to the practice just because the union can finally be recognised legally. The people who want it are probably already in such arrangements informally. So where are they?
That was my point, Anna, but I didn’t have time to make it. There’s enough to worry about regarding equality in any relationship and power relations. With multiple partners, there’s much more, particularly when there are disparities between the age of the youngest spouse and the patriarch. Inevitably, it’s associated with a model of marriage which views women as chattels or property. Hence my assertion that there’s harm caused to those within the relationship.
“Civitas’ question – “should 3 people be allowed to get married?â€? is fundamentally irrelevant. The only reason it would be relevant would be if he could draw the link to gay marriage, and use it as an example to highlight something that is wrong about polygamous marriage that is also wrong about gay marriage.”
The reason the question is relevant is that legalization of either plural marriage or gay marriage requires a findamental change in the concept and definition of marriage.
“Abortion is not as much a contentious issue here compared to the US because the law was changed in the political arena as against Roe vs Wade where a couple of Kirby look-alikes suddenly found a new dimension to the right to privacy. This finding managed to turn what was obviously a political/ conscience decision into the biggest friggin legal/political mess for 30 odd years.”
Spot on. This is exactly how people who are pro-choice, like me, wind up being against Roe v. Wade. The issue should be decided by the people, not handed down by judicial fiat. Until it is, the issue will always be contentious and unfortunately a constant topic of discussion.
Interesting article JC.
Although the situations described are very different to gay marriage. Will a gay man (or woman) make any less or more impact on the marriage market for straight people whether or not they are married?
If you are gay you are gay, you aren’t taken “off the market” the moment you marry, except of course for other gay people.
Apart from that I do wonder at the implications of this from a libertarian standpoint.
On the one hand we have the left generally arguing that people should have the liberty to choose who they marry. With this I agree. Then you have the right/conservatives (many who would support free-market principles) saying that gay marriage will lead to all other sorts of “abominations” and societal ills.
The question is…how far do you take libertarianism? Where do you draw the line? Do you say that from a pragmatic point of view allowing gay marriage makes no impact to the marriage pool because those people would be gay anyway so it is fine, but polygamy does so it is not? Or could you argue, just as for gay marriage that all those who are in polyamorous relationships are now anyway, and that legalising polygamy wouldn’t change that? I’m not sure. It sounds kind of like the drug legalisation debate. does legalising marihuana (for example) create a society of dope-fiends?
I guess it is a question of cause and effect. Does legalising gay/polygamous marriage encourage more of it or does it just meet a need that is already present?
Yeah, its all strategically feasible. Once the word gets out that ‘civil unions’ arent marriages per se, rather a means of recognition of a same sex relationship that brings full equality before the law, I think the majority of conservatives will calm down.
They’re simple folk – just want to feel they’re getting a better class of recognition than ‘other-f*ckers’.
Or am I missing something – is the campaign for ‘marriage’, per se? Cant say Im terribly optimsitic about achieving that soon.
…just to clarify my last point.
My position is that legalising gay marriage from a scoietal standpoint leaves us where we are with no detriment, but with a huge benefit for those gay people (and their families) who DO want to make a lifelong commitment. I just can’t see what all the fuss is about. If we make it legal then life would pretty much go on as before for the vast and overwhelming majority of people.
Lefty E, no it’s for civil unions. What’s upsetting people, I think, is that the ACT laws envisage things like formal ceremonies. In Tassie, you just register your partnership. The former is seen apparently as being a privilege of marriage.
The sky hasn’t fallen in over in the UK or Canada, as far as I can see, Pinguthepenguin.
“The sky hasn’t fallen in over in the UK or Canada, as far as I can see, Pinguthepenguin.”
I wasn’t argueing that it would. Did I come across that way or have I missunderstood your comment?
Pinguthepenguin
P, I included the piece as a counter to Mr. lefty’s neutral comments about polygamy. I didn’t post it from a gay marriage perspective. However the piece actually comes out in support of gay marriage decribing it as entirely different in terms of the social factors involved and actualy, as far as I can tell, helps the gay marriage debate.
Sorry if I didn’t expplain it better.
Pingu, sorry, I was agreeing with you!
Heh.
Joe and I have both had to clarify what we’re trying to say. Probably a good sign to toss in the 1am commenting and go to sleep!
But before I go, belatedly, excellent and passionately written post, Cristy. We need more anger and passion sometimes in political debate.
Incidentally, though I’ve used it in a different sense above, ‘Otherfucker’(TM) is an amusing term (if I do say so myself) that I once coined for *that* annoying sub-group of lefties who exclusively, as if on principle, serially fall for people from oppressed nations, ethnic minorities, indigenous groupings, diasporic Chileans, what-have-you, etc
You know the sort! Bouncing romantically from one vicarious third-world struggle to another, seeking the authentic experience of alterity through the medium of shagging, as if its communicable, like thrush.
Otherfuckers!
Heh.
Yeah, I’ve had a few try to add one-legged American bisexual chick to their collection, Lefty E!
“one-legged American bisexual chick ”
Is that a euphemism for some sort of sexual position I haven’t come across yet, or do you actually only have one leg? Don’t mean to sound rude/pushy. Just wonderin’
No, I actually have one leg.
See reflections on that from me (composed while a bit pissy!) here last year:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/07/09/what-its-like-to-have-one-leg/
I bet you have, Kim!
Now you know what they’re called.
I’ll remember that, Lefty E. I’m indebted to your wordsmithery!
Let’s face it, gay men and lesbians could hardly be more rubbish at marriage than hetero couples.
50% failure rate, and its a sacred institution “specially� for them.
Talk about rewarding failure – yet another prime example of the state propping up bludgers and no-hopers.
*Clap* (wiping away tears of mirth)
Also, how is “I love your institution and want to join it” tearing down that institution? Can’t for the life of me understand it.
Thordaddy:
We are in Australia, not America, and people here are working to get legislation passed.
JayTeh:
I do – hence the ‘anger and passion’ (mentioned by Kim).
Kim:
Thank you.
The problem with the radical super-minority is that they couch their arguments on a non-discrimination and individual “rights” basis forever exposing themselves to “slippery-slope” arguments while at the same time disparaging anddismantling the very institution they claim to want to be a part of. It’s an illogical argument through and through.
If you’re going to insist on saying “slippery slope� all the time, then you should at least know what it means.
Unless you can prove to us how this change will push us down that slippery slope when all other changes to marriage have not, then you are engaging in a fallacious argument (ie bullshit).
So tell us, thordaddy, how allowing gay marriage will push us down a slippery slope. Will marriage certificates suddenly self-destruct? Will otherwise happily married couples suddenly go out looking for third or fourth partners? Is it only a ban on gay marriage that allows Tiddles to remain a bachelor?
Tell us, please, how marriage as we know it will end because more people are allowed to do it…
Considering how many times Thordaddy has simply repeated the same meaningless claim over and over, my guess would be that he has absolutely no evidence to support it other than his ‘gut feeling’. This gut feeling is merely his own personal prejudice and cannot be justified by real logic.
Thordaddy is a troll who can’t even be bothered to note that this is an Australian blog and not an American one. He’s not worth arguing with because he doesn’t make arguments, he just insists.
The irony is that he’s really a left-librul Democrat troll, sent out into the wider interwebs to foster anti-Americanism – all part of the Dems strategy for the next election, when they’ll run on the “Thanks to Dubya, everybody hates us – even Australians” platform.
Anna opines,
So I need to correctly predict the future, a prediction you will no doubt disagree with, lest I be making a “fallacious argument?”
Would anyone disagree that the push for inter-religious marriage and interracial marriage pushed us “down the slippery-slope” towards gay “marriage?” Those that pushed for those modifications in the one man and one woman tradition used the non-discrimination and “equal rights” argument to bolster their claim.
You simply have no argument for ANY settled definition for marriage in the larger society if you are to advocate for gay “marriage.” Any criteria YOU use to define marriage anew will be every bit as “discriminatory” and “intolerant” as the ones that stood before. None of your arguments against bigamy, polygamy, incestaul or bestial relations stand a chance against YOUR own non-discrimination and “equal rights” arguments, DO THEY?
No… but marriage will be a meaningless concept to the larger society. You seem to think you can redefine marriage to mean one person and one person, but then stop there when someone wants to define his/her marriage as one person and one person and one person and demand state validation? This push for gay “marriage” by a radical super-minority has nothing to do with making real covenants, but rather forcing society to perceive homosexuality as normal. The only way this can be done is to tear everything down that most people see as normal, namely, traditional marriage and its exalted status in most civilized societies.
Good Lord you are a moron, aren’t you! You’re already claiming that you can predict the future! Yes; if you are going to make claims about what will happen in the future, you have to convince people that yours is a correct prediction. If you can’t, then shut-up about slippery slopes.
Go away until you can contribute something that makes sense.
Thordaddy, what part of ‘consenting adults’ don’t you get? TROLL.
All this makes me want to go to a pool with a slippery slope and slide down one while eating a lollipop. And then do a few laps.
Just sayin… beautiful warm autumn day in these parts.
‘Would anyone disagree that the push for inter-religious marriage and interracial marriage pushed us “down the slippery-slopeâ€? towards gay “marriage?”
Oh, how delicious!
1) the push for inter-religious marriage and interracial marriage pushed us “down the slippery-slopeâ€? towards gay “marriage”
2) the push towards ‘gay marriage’ pushes us down towards the slippery slope towards marriage between observa and Tiddle the cat
therefore
3) the push towards inter-homo-sapiens marriage pushed us down the slippery slope towards inter-religious marriage and interracial marriage which then pushed us “down the slippery-slopeâ€? towards gay “marriage”
therefore
Let’s call the whole thing off
QED
Oh I missed that. Let’s go back to prohibiting miscegenation, shall we?
Right, I’m off to marry a space alien. A blue one. Will match my shoes.
So gay “marriage” is the end of the progressive advance in defining and redefining those unions that receive state validation?
Yes or No?
After I work out why I wanted to eat a lollipop.
Thor! You have a baby and your wife would like some attention!
Right, I’ve talked myself into going for a swim. See youse round like a rissole!
I always pictured you with a Ruby Red Venusian, Kim.
Earth girls are easy.
Kim
You don’t have to go for non-humanoid aliens when there are plenty of humanoid-looking ones around.
Don’t forget Superman and Supergirl are aliens though they may not look it. And Wonder Woman is literally a goddess.
Of course you could go for someone more exotic like Starfire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfire_(comics)
Thordaddy,
It ain’t over ’till it’s equal. As bigamy, polygamy, bestiality and all of the other concepts you’re confusing the issue with don’t involve equality, nobody can argue for them on the same grounds.
Kim: beautiful warm autumn day here in Adders too. Goin’ for a walk shortly. On the beach. (Bit too nippy and blowy for an actual swim.)
Jason: your logic is flawless, excpet that Tiddles has already said he doesn’t want to marry anyone, least of all Observa.
Thordaddy: if you’re going to insist on saying “opines” all the time, then you should at least know what that means, too.
No Liam,
I’m not opposed to same-sex marriage, but the fact is that a law which prohibits polygamy is every bit as discriminatory as one which prohibits, or fails to recognise at law, gay marriage. It results in unequal treatment under the law.
The natural response is to say: “Well, marriage is betwen two people, and two gay people shouldn’t be treated differently from two straight people of opposite sexes”, which would be my view. But then logically, an appeal to the traditional concept of marriage as between two people is about as valid as an appeal to the traditional concept of marriage as between two people of different sexes.
This unnecessary diversion could have been avoided if the simple questions about polygamy/bigamy were answered with a degree of intellectual honesty in the first place, instead of the Anna Winter/Cristy/Kim groupthink.
Yo-Yo, if you haven’t worked out the many differences among Kim’s, Cristy’s and Anna’s positions on various things by now, then you’re providing a lot of heavy ammunition for my theory that many male bloggers simply ignore posts by women in favour of going on shouting at each other. If you’d read their posts with any attention, you’d know how different they are.
My comment was directed narrowly to the slippery-slope/polygamy/bigamy side-discussion. Looking back at the posts, ‘groupthink’ was not the right word. I acknowledge that they had different views on the issue. I can’t speak to whether they have different views on other topics.
I can assure you I ignore posts by both men and women.
Yo.
Not so much as a thank you from Anna Winters for being updated on the current Superannuation situation. I could have just let her keep banging on making herself look silly, but I thought I would help her and what do I get? Nada, nix, nothing . .
Thank you Razor.
Bloody hell, yo-yo – do you understand that it is possible for people to disagree with you without them being intellectually dishonest? You seem to be suggesting that people are wrong for no other reason than that they aren’t convinced that your argument is a good one.
Clearly you think that discriminating on the basis of genitals is the same as discriminating on the basis of number of people. Good for you – I think it’s a ridiculous comparison. I provided you with a link to an article that illustrates my view, because I didn’t think it was worth repeating what Lindsay said so well already. But since obviously you are either too lazy to read it, or too dense to understand her point, I’ll try to paraphrase for you:
Two people is not the same as three people.
Sayeth James Hamilton on 17 May 2006 at 5:13 pm:
Heterosexual pair-bondings with a marriage certificate are legally protected from that sort of arseholery about hospital visitation, child custody and money stuff through State recognition of their choice of each other as next-of-kin. Relatives can challenge the automatic legal protections conferred by marriage, but they have to convince a court, whereas without marriage relatives are the automatic next-of-kin privilege-holders, with all the potential for aresholery that affords.
I think it’s fair enough for same-sex couples to ask for access to an equivalent certificate that provides for State recognition of their pair-bond providing similiar legal protections.
Either the State is in the business of legally recognising pair-bonds or it isn’t. Either regard heterosexual marriage as solely a cultural/religious ritual with no legal protections, or extend the legal protections to non-heterosexual pair-bonds.
JahTeh wrote:
“I have read all the previous comments and except the homo who doesn’t want to be married, not one has said they know or have as friends, gays or lesbians . . . I have lesbian friends.”
Since when does having gay/lesbian *friends* put one on a moral pedestal, or even give one any special insights? I say this as (I assume I am, anyway) “the homo (sic) who doesn’t want to be married”. JahTeh, HOW DARE YOU use an offensive term as if you were “in” enough for such use to be uncontroversial (i.e. self-deprecatory).
For the record, I don’t think that a straight person’s having gay/lesbian friends means anything much. Especially compared to the fact that everyone has gay *family*. By this, I mean that with us being about one in 15 of the population, statistically almost everyone will have at least one gay/lesbian close relation: child, grandchild, sibling, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew or cousin.
Recently, JahTeh came in for a harsh pasting on another comments thread in this blog: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/05/08/the-amateur-technocrat/#comments Then, I held my tongue, although my honest opinion was that JahTeh came across as a whingeing, gold-digging skank. But I’m sure that you won’t mind me calling you that, JahTeh. After all, I have *friends* who are gold-digging skanks (although I’ve gotta admit that I draw the line at “whingeingâ€?).
Hmm, that’s a tad harsh Paul. I think JahTeh meant well but perhaps it didn’t come out as s/he had hoped. As a homo I don’t really mind being called one. Reappropriate the words and diffuse their effect, I’ve always found that to be a satisfying tactic.
Paul, I think you’re being very rude. You’ve every right to call JahTeh out on her use of language if you find it offensive but not right to call her names.
As for whether or not she has a right to express her opinion on gay marriage — are you saying that those of us with gay friends and family should ignore THEIR feelings about the gay marriage issue and simply go with your view instead? Sorry, but if my friends who are gay tell me they want to get married and they think it sucks that they can’t then I’m going to side with them. In my eyes, your view is no more privileged than theirs, in fact, since I know and love them and empathise with their feelings then I damn well know who I’m going to side with.
Thordaddy sayeth: “…while at the same time disparaging and dismantling the very institution they claim to want to be a part of.”
This is ridiculous. Although not as ridiculous as the stuff about inter-religious and interracial marriage.
Jason – c’mon, poke more fun at him. You’re very good at poking fun where it’s deserved. I’m all with the libertarians on gay marriage.
Liam: “It ain’t over ’till it’s equal. As bigamy, polygamy, bestiality and all of the other concepts you’re confusing the issue with don’t involve equality, nobody can argue for them on the same grounds”
We may be getting to the nub of the matter here Liam. Help us all out and explain to us all how bigamy, polygamy, bestiality (and presumably incest etc etc) are not about equality – but gay marriage is?
My personal view is that households should be treated equally in terms of law, taxation and welfare, but that it doesn’t require a redefinition of the concept of marriage to achieve that.
Paul sez:
“For the record, I don’t think that a straight person’s having gay/lesbian friends means anything much. Especially compared to the fact that everyone has gay *family*.”
So basically you are saying that straight people should just keep their mouths shut on gay issues? Because we aren’t gay and so couldn’t possibly understand?
Perhaps we should shut up about women’s rights if we are men, shutup about poverty because we aren’t poor…etc
Actually sounds good to me. I’m alright Jack, the rest of the world can go jump. Sounds like a much easier way to live my life in fact. So err…yeah, nothing to see here folks, move along. Paul says you aren’t gay so it is none of your business. And stay out of those gay bars too, they aren’t meant for the likes of us.
Bestiality (poor tiddles) – there is only one consenting adult in this scenario, can you see the difference? If not I fear for the safety of your pets.
Incest – Why is incest consistently compared to gay marriage/relationships by RWDB? Come on if you can’t see the difference here then you are being incredibly dishonest, or willfully thick as pig-shit.
Bigamy – Different from polygamy. It is marrying another person while still married to another. So again, dishonest or pigshit which one is it?
Polygamy – Although some people here maintain that there is a fundamental difference here, I would still say that in this case if we take the idea of liberty with regards to our personal relations then polygamy should be allowed on the same grounds as gay marriage. Problem is the complexity surrounding this which we just don’t have when talking about gay marriage. So we could easily put this in the “too hard basket” for now.
I really don’t understand the point of this debate. If you want your union consecrated in some spiritual fashion, then shop around around for the right religion or organise it yourself. Gnostic spark and all that.
If it is, and so often is, a matter of legal and financial recognition of what the union means – from super to next of kin rights – then agitate for what you think is missing legislative-wise while getting a smart lawyer to set up a business partnership-type arrangement (a two person tontine perhaps?) that deals with these concerns.
And I really can’t understand anyway why anyone would want to be a member of a sect that refuses to acknowledge its defined maker’s gift of individual sexuality to its members.
Just so long as you don’t do it the street and scare the horses.
With humans though, you can do it – but one lubed-up step at a time ‘cos they can often whinny and bolt.
Which I believe is exactly what is being done.
Which I am sure you wouldn’t want o have to go through if you didn’t have to. Hence the agitation for gay marriage rights. Seems simple enough.
It was bad enough with poor tiddles, now you have to bring Mr Ed into it?
OK Pinguthepenguin,
Bestiality: So Tiddles is a minor then? What if Tiddles enjoys it? What if Tiddles made the first move?
Incest: You have no answer, and resort to personal abuse instead. If it is so obvious – do tell
Bigamy: You’re presuming that it is done dishonestly, I think, and note that Liam included this in the list – not I!
Polygamy: Avoiding the question
You’ve got nothing have you? You have arbitrarily singled out gay unions from other non-marriage relationships for some reason that you are unable to enunciate.
“What if Tiddles made the first move?”
Well let’s face it, cats are real lapteasers.
Wilbur, where are you going with that milk crate? Wilbur …
:Bestiality: So Tiddles is a minor then? What if Tiddles enjoys it? What if Tiddles made the first move?”
MMRRRREEEOWWWW!!!!
I have had just about enough of this endless libelling of my good character!
My honour and dignity as a feline has been gravely offended by the aspersions cast upon my sexuality and good taste by the fevered and demented imaginations of the RWDBs in your community.
For the sake of future amity in human-cat relations, please either desex these obviously frustrated individuals or raise a fund to buy them a good lay. I for one would be willing to set aside 10% of my daily feasts to help this along. Any takers?
And for the love of God, please keep this creepy observa character away from any more mention of my name. I’d sooner lie with that ragged little one eared stray in my neighbourhood than go within 10 feet of that weird dude.
Well let’s face it, cats are real lapteasers.
Cats in lap-tease mode don’t care which sex one is, either.
“It was “two blokes and a cocker spaniel.’ Labs are usually lesbian.”
Yeah OK. I’m sprung.
Not to comment on most of the issues – but on the matter that yo-yo raised – I quote the slate article which said “one isn’t the number of people you want to sleep to, it’s the number of people you want your partner to sleep with” No – this isn’t a guide to all sexual relationships, I’m just saying it applies to a lot more than you might think
No one ever asks me to sit in their lap.
“Recently, JahTeh came in for a harsh pasting on another comments thread in this blog”
actually, if you’ll read that thread, you’ll find that it wasn’t the person you indicate who came in for a harsh pasting.
So what will the “progressives” say when 3 homosexuals come in to get their state-sanctioned marriage?
Will they ALLOW this GAY “marriage,”
or,
Will they DENY this GAY “marriage” because it doesn’t ABIDE by the traditional standard of 2 people?
LOL!
Or, what will the “progressives” say when 2 gay brothers want their union state-sanctioned?
Will the ALLOW this gay “marriage,”
or,
Will they DENY this gay “marriage” because it doesn’t ABIDE by the traditional standard of non-related couples?
LOL!
Thordaddy, no one is interested in your hilarious jokes, so I think that you need to go away and find another audience.
Thank you for your thoughtful and considered participation in this thread.
Have a lovely day.
Cristy,
The point should be obvious? What does a traditional instutition that comprises in totality of equality, non-discrimination and tolerance look like?
It sure doesn’t look like the institution of marriage, DOES IT?
Thordaddy, your point is obvious and you have stated it and restated it over and over again in this thread. Enough is enough though, you have become boring.
Please move on.
Cripes, will somebody take Boredaddy’s greatest hits off? It’s killing this party.
Seriously though, in the parlance of modern social theory, I do think the Gay & Lesbian campaign needs to strategically determine whether to represent itself as a recognition (we want the state and church respect and honour our union) or redistribution (we want equal rights re super, wills, estate with hetero couples) struggle.
If framed as the latter, the campaign will take on an uncomplicated civil rights dimension, quite compatible with liberal ideology, which Conservative opponents of civil unions will inevitably lose. This struggle can and will be won.
While the former is clearly just as important, resistance will be fierce if the objectives are stated baldly in recogntion terms. Its just a question of framing.
Anyway, even if they do work out the former is also being achieved under the rubric of the latter, they’ll be trapped by their own hegemonic logic of inviolable property rights by that point.
Kate and pinguthepenguin, re gay-friendly straights –
Kate, when you refer to “friends *and* family�, you conflate my precise point. Gay-friendliness starts at home, i.e. with one’s gay family-members (who one doesn’t choose, of course). A few people genuinely mightn’t have any gay, cousin-or-closer relatives, but for the most part, I suspect that a typical straight person’s having gay friends is just an easier way of obtaining “gay-cred� than trying to befriend, say, one’s dodgy gay uncle.
Pinguthepenguin: No, I don’t remotely object to gay-friendly straights (how could I, when I’m a straight-friendly poof?). Just don’t you get up on pedestal, literally (i.e. at the club) or metaphorically, about it all. (Exception: straight male podium dancers always welcome, if they are exceptionally hot). Gay-friendliness starts at home, remember.
Stop oppressing the ugly and plain, Paul.
Try being human friendly.
But Paul … what if the dodgy gay uncle is (*makes sign of cross*) a BOOMER? Which trumps what here?
Rhino, any cat will tell you that asking permission is naff and abject. Just do it.
PC, what is a boomer?
Is it similar to a bomber, or to a bogan, or a booner?
“But Paul … what if the dodgy gay uncle is (*makes sign of cross*) a BOOMER? Which trumps what here”
LOL. Touche.
But seriously I also found JahTeh’s comment a bit annoying. She was claiming that anyone who didn’t brag about having gay friends in making their argument didn’t have any. I do, just didn’t think it was particularly relevant. Which was Paul’s point, but the fellow has an attitude/anger problem.
I got the feeling that JahTeh was actually trying to bring the conversation around to you know, real gay people, instead of speaking in generalisations. I don’t think she was trying to co-opt gay cred or claim people should brag about having gay friends — I think her point was that the reason many of us straight folks care about this subject is because we care about our family and friends, who often happen to be gay.
Watson. What’s up with you? What’s with calling this woman a skank, etc.
And what are you?
You’re bad publicity. That’s all. If you want to give gays a bad image you couldn’t do better.
A booner? What is that? Someone who lives in the boonies? Probably not age-specific, if so.
My understanding of bogans is that they wear beanies, so not very many of them would be boomers, who have mostly grown out of beanies, thought there are, I admit, exceptions. Especially bald exceptions.
The Bomber is definitely a Boomer, but none of the Bombers are — only Sheeds.*
*AFL joke
Cristy,
A “boomer” is shorthand for a baby boomer. In Australia, this refers to someone born between 1946 and 1961 (and a bit), whose typical life, when viewed at an aged-40 “snapshot”, is remarkably different to that that of a typical, mid 60s-born Xer. Which gives me the chance to plug a quest I’m running on my blog http://paulwatson.blogspot.com/2006/05/find-me-successful-non-obsessive.html re whether I might be making too much of the boomer/Xer life-at-40 distinction, after all.
Re dodgy gay uncles who are (shock horror) boomers – I dunno. I genuinely don’t have any close relatives born between 1946 and 1961, except some cousins from one side of my family that I haven’t seen since childhood. Is suggesting that one first has him make a will in your favour, then take him out podium-dancing in tiny lycra shorts, with a chaff-bag of amyl in front of his nostrils, a teensy-bit harsh?
Pav – a booner is a species unique to Canberra, closely aligned to the southern bogan.
Got it. Thank you.
In Canberra, a booner is (was?) someone who wears tight black jeans and flannel shirts.
My understanding was that bogans were Sydney’s version of booners – with a wider variation in fashion – often with mullets.
Essendon aside, a bomber is (was?) another Canberra slang term for a fashion style that I am not sure really exists anymore. There were baggy jeans involved and some ‘bling’, but I am not really sure how to be more descriptive…
Paul, if there is nobody born in those years whose life you have had an opportunity to observe over the decades, then it explains a great deal about some of your more bizarre theories and remarks about so-called Boomers. Re gay uncle, will, lycra, amyl etc — harsh? No, just unrealistic; he will already have been there and done that, not having lived for 45 years in a big plastic bubble in the attic. Strangely, by the time we’ve been around for this long, we have developed a certain amount of rat cunning: be assured that he would have your number.
Which gives me the chance to plug a quest I’m running on my blog re whether I might be making too much of the boomer/Xer life-at-40 distinction, after all.
Yes Paul, you are. Your 15 year span for boomers encompassed a lot of different life experiences and a far from homogenous group. A “boomer’ born in 1961 is going to have a lot more in common with an “Xer” born in 1962 than they are with a 1946 boomer. Or a 1943 born war child.
No-one needs visit your blog to see that you make too much of the boomer/x divide – it’s evident in most of the comments you post elsewhere.
My views on gay marriage would be the same regardless of whether or not I had any gay friends. It’s a basic Kantian liberal presumption of treating individuals equally under the law, including in the enforcement of contracts, unless there are compelling externalities.
And if the State enforces a special kind of contract like a marriage contract which is really just a way of saving contractors some transaction costs and allocating presumptions (like visiting rights) in an efficient manner, similar considerations should apply -it should be presumed available to all taxpayers, or alternatively perhaps the State shouldn’t be providing this contract at all, and marriage should be purely a matter of private contractual arrangement which is enforceable on a case by case basis according to the princples of contract law.
It shouldn’t be a matter of feelings or who you know at all.
What Jason said.
Except I can understand how people get het up when their friends, their family and themselves get discriminated against because the law refuses to be liberal.
And one day, I’m going to post that piece on Kant’s worst ever application of the categorical imperative.
Jason & Gummo,
are you saying it Kant be so?
Homer
You can be an annoying Kant sometimes …
no I am a coperniKant which I am over the moon with!
Well, you know what they say…
Those who Kan, do,
and those who Kant, teach,
and those who can’t teach, teach cant.
I am a kant do person not a Kan do person.
I had a friend who was a twin.
They were can-can do twins!
BBEP: “…they were can-can do twins!”
Gracious! I doff my hat to you, sir.
And of course, we read about this in The Kanterbury Tales…
There once was a fellow named Kant
Who made rules for his Shall and his Sha’n't;
They were quite categorical
But a bit of a bore-ical:
A thinking man’s “plume de ma tante.”
Cristy,
isn’t ‘bogan’ more a Melbourne term? I always thought we just called ‘em ‘westies’ in Sydney.
Paul Watson, Comicstriphero had a post about what to call gays and lesbians as what they call each other can sound offensive when used by straight people so I didn’t throw out the term ‘homo’ without thinking of who it might offend, I just used it. But calling me a whingeing golddigging skank was deliberately offensive on your part.
Jason Soon, I don’t believe I bragged about having gay friends and I certainly didn’t ask the commenters to brag. I only wanted to know how involved they were about the marriage issue with their gay friends.
Asking gay friends and relatives is the only way I know to get their opinions rather than rely on reported percentages of who wants what.
Jason Soon opines,
This is a funny argument that gay radicals make here in the states. As the law is constructed here in the US, “equality under the law” means that the law applies equally to all its citizens.
In order to get a state-sanctioned marriage license the couple must comprise of one man and one woman.
This law APPLIES EQUALLY to ALL US citizens.
Likewise, the law does not allow state-sanctioned marriage between same-sexes.
This law APPLIES EQUALLY to ALL US citizens.
What you are arguing for is a special law that applies to a specific demographic of US citizen. This law by its very nature will be discriminatory thereby undercutting your “Katian liberal presumption.”
“In order to get a state-sanctioned marriage license the couple must comprise of one man and one woman.”
except in Massachusetts, yes?
So do you have any problems with two men getting married in Massachusetts as the law allows it, or does it offend your senses?
Well it’s vicious. I’m just very surprised that such guttersnipe comments can be made about JahTeh by this dirty low creep when she uses her blog to defend gay rights. And particularly when there are homos and lesbians on this blog and yet not one of them has shown the decency to stand by her.
So how can you sling shit at someone like Blair when you allow this sort of shit to be flung at one of your strongest supporters, and from inside your own camp?
I tell you, I’d rather get support from a rat, or a cockroach, which are straightforward creatures, never disputing what they are.
It’s obvious that Jason means that a large fraction of the population, by the nature of the gender of the other person in their relationship (if they’re in a relationship with one other person), can marry that person, and being married has certain legal consequences.
Obviously, a person who is in a relationship with someone of the same gender is unable to get married to them (unless they’re residents of Massachusetts, although anyone can get married in Canada) and thus the “legal character” of the marriage relationship is not open to them.
sacha,
First, the Massachusett’s Supreme Court TOLD the state legislation that is must make a law sanctioning gay “marriage.” This isn’t how things are done in the US.
Secondly, the number of gays in the US is around 2-4%. This means that the number actually wanting to marry is much smaller.
Thirdly, “equality under the law” is unambigious and to say that the law treats homosexuals differently is false. Homosexuals WANT the law to change so they can be treated differently.
Trolldeadbeat OPINEs:
First, the Massachusett’s Supreme Court TOLD the state legislation that is must make a law sanctioning gay “marriage.� This isn’t how things are done in the US.
Except in Massachusetts, of course. When did they secede from the Union? Or did the Union kick Massachusetts out?
Secondly, the number of gays in the US is around 2-4%. This means that the number actually wanting to marry is much smaller.
Still ten times as many as here in Australia.
Thirdly, “equality under the law� is unambigious and to say that the law treats homosexuals differently is false.
And apparently it doesn’t matter on statistical grounds anyway – otherwise what’s the relevance of point two?
As Jason remarked, and I’ve said elsewhere (other blogs, other comment threads) the law makes a form of contract – the marriage licence – available to men who want to marry women and vice versa, but not same sex couples who want some form of easy civil recognition when they’re dealing with insurance companies and other institutions where such partnerships confer such things as pwer of attorney etc. This is not equal treatment, except in trolldedbeat’s sophistical way of looking at the world.
Tigtog: “isn’t ‘bogan’ more a Melbourne term? I always thought we just called ‘em ‘westies’ in Sydney.”
Yes, you’re right. I think that bogan is actually a Melbourne term – one that filtered into Canberra at some point, but not really ‘intact’. The Sydney equivalent is, indeed, a westie. Thank you.
Prior to the Loving vs. Virginia decision:
In order to get a state-sanctioned marriage license in Virginia the couple had to be comprised of one man and one woman of the same race.
This law APPLIED EQUALLY to ALL citizens of the State of Virginia.
Likewise, the law did not allow state-sanctioned marriage between mixed-race couples.
This law APPLIED EQUALLY to ALL citizens of the State of Virginia.
Take this formula and apply it to women’s suffrage or the Jim Crow laws and you begin to see how fallacious–not to mention illiberal and callous–thordaddy’s reasoning is.
What you are arguing for is a special law that applies to a specific demographic of US citizen. This law by its very nature will be discriminatory thereby undercutting your “Katian liberal presumption.�
No. What exists now is a special law that applies to a specific demographic of US citizen: heterosexuals. Altering that law so that it applies in equal measure to same-sex couples and heterosexual couples (by allowing state-sanctioned marriage between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples) would be less discriminatory, no?
I think that bogan is actually a Melbourne term
It’s used in WA too, and I imagine it has the same meaning.
AV,
So answer the following questions about Gay “marriage?”
So what will the “progressives� say when 3 homosexuals come in to get their state-sanctioned marriage?
Will they ALLOW this GAY “marriage,�
or,
Will they DENY this GAY “marriage� because it doesn’t ABIDE by the traditional standard of 2 people?
Or, what will the “progressives� say when 2 gay brothers want their union state-sanctioned?
Will the ALLOW this GAY “marriage,�
or,
Will they DENY this GAY “marriage� because it doesn’t ABIDE by the traditional standard of non-related couples?
What do you do with these GAY “marriages?”
You MUST obliterate ALL DEFINING CRITERIA for marriage if you really believe in equality, non-discrimination and tolerance, no?
Did interracial or inter-religious marriage have this same effect?
Honestly Thordaddy, you have repeated your one and only argument over and over far too many times. You have not said anything new for some time now.
Please stop simply repeating yourself. It is really boring and completely side-tracks any interesting discussion that might take place were people not distracted by your monotonous rant.
Cristy,
What is your attempt here?
You can easily answer these questions concerning GAY “marriage” and then perhaps we will move on to further understanding.
Why would you DISCRIMINATE for or against the above GAY “marriages?”
What are your arguments for GAY “marriage?”
1. Equality under the Law… There is no inequality under the law.
2. Non-discrimination… Your new definition of marriage STILL discriminates.
3. Tolerance… Yet, you remain mum about other adult unions thereby leaving us to suspect your INTOLERANCE towards those ALTERNATIVE unions.
Unfortunately for me, I can’t live with these illusions.
‘This is a funny argument that gay radicals make here in the states. As the law is constructed here in the US, “equality under the lawâ€? means that the law applies equally to all its citizens.’
Heh, Gay Radical, I love it. When I’m neither gay nor radical (or only radical in the sense that JS Mill stood as a Radical candidate for Parliament). The whole fallacy of thordaddy’s argument of course revolves around holding the definition of the term ‘citizens’ – as long as laws apply unequally, the people discriminated against are not being treated as full citizens – see AV’s argument.
What Friedrich Hayek can teach us about gay marriage
http://www.reason.com/0406/fe.jr.objections.shtml
Jason,
I wasn’t calling you a “gay radical,” but instead was indentifying those that make this equivalent argument in the US.
If you can clearly articulate how “gays” are treated differently than heterosexuals in the manner of law, I would love to hear it.
But, as of now, the institution of marriage treats ALL people the same. In order to enjoy the benefits of marriage, one must marry someone of the opposite sex.
How does this treat “gays” differently.
What you are saying is that BECAUSE “gays” are DIFFERENT we must change the institution of marriage to accomodate their DIFFERENCE.
This is NOT an inequality under the law scenario.
You must come up with a better argument.
thordaddy,
Go take your meds so the rest of can enjoy our weekend.
Jason,
Is that supposed to let you avoid the debate?
How is the law treating gays UNEQUALLY as INDIVIDUALS? What can I do as an individual that a gay individual can’t do? What is a gay individual prohibited from doing that I’m not also prohibited from doing? You want to extend some kind of group “rights” mentality that has no business in this debate about “equality under the law.”
Where’s the inequality under the law?
Jason,
Excuse me for the erroneous attribution.
OzReader,
You’re more than welcome to answer the question.
Jason,
Isn’t changing the “boundaries” of marriage the whole problem?
If we are now to say that gender is an outdated and irrelevant boundary for defining marriage then by what liberal logic does the remaining “boundaries” for marriage stand a chance?
You can’t possibly put up any kind of defense against 3 males getting married or 2 male brothers getting married unless you have an inexplicable appeal to tradition or you are simply wallowing in the same discrimination and intolerance you blame others of.
In my life I’ve had several relationships (one at a time, my past isn’t that exciting) and in all of the previous ones me and/or the other person involved decided that things weren’t really that good and, on balance, it’d be best to call it a day. These days I’m shacked up with someone I intend to keep. This situation makes me similar to roughly half of my friends. What makes me different is that the previous partners are women, and the current one is a bloke. All of a sudden I find myself in a relationship that gets all this public and familial support, and frankly, I’m sad, because it highlights just how little support there was in the past. My new reality is that when the government talks about ‘families’ they mean me. When they want to support ‘couples’ to have children, all of a sudden they mean me. It’s rather strange at 28 to find yourself as part of the priviledged majority, especially when you haven’t changed at all.
All of a sudden I’m considered capable of making a contract to stay with another person til death. I’m suddenly a good enough person to be a parent, to use public health resources to get pregnant if I want, or to adopt locally or overseas. All of a sudden I am, officially, worthy and good where once I was incompetant and barely tolerated.
I don’t particularly want to get married, but I could, very easily if I did want to. As a shacked up couple, my partner and I will enjoy almost all of the priviledges of married hetro couples. By contrast, my friends who have been in lesbian relationships for longer – who have emigrated for their partner, who have bought a house, and who have withstood far greater tests than my relationship probably ever will – have no rights at all.
All I want for my friends is the recognition that they have the same right to decide the level of commitment in their relationship as I do.
Kate2,
All you are really saying is that you want society to conform to you and your friends.
I don’t see many here at LP giving endorsements and validation to my stance. Does that make them bigots and haters because I can’t get what I want?
As long as the advocates for gay “marriage” demonize the institution of marriage and those that support it, they will find themselves on the outside looking in. Even if they do get some kind of symbolic victory, it won’t be lost on the majority on how it all came about.
The advocates are making all the wrong arguments and are hoping to bully their way to societal validation. Do you think that will work?
Good to see such a long-in-the-tooth comments thread returning to base (i.e. topic). If I may say so, I think that every one of my above non-fans would agree that this here poof is *not* suitable marriage/LTR material for almost anyone. (Insert argument-clinching, killer-punch sound effect).
Under the pretext, then, of further confirming what an autistic gay arsehole I really am (aka RH’s Kill-the-Witch! rallying cry), it is my painful duty to now ever-so-slightly reprise the “boomer” tangent (which I didn’t actually raise, FWIW). This is also necessary because Gummo Trotsky seems to have called a fatwa – “Kill-the-Facts!”, this time – on my blog. http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/05/17/discrimination-and-same-sex-marriage/#comment-76620
Very briefly then. Pavlov’s Cat, you have a point. Because I have no boomer family members (nor friends, needless to say), I probably do rant against boomers in an excessively de-personalised fashion. So let me stress that one’s being born between 1946 and 1961 does not per se make one a “bad� boomer-person. Rather, it is what one does, and has done, with one’s life that counts. So if a “born� boomer is making a real fist of promoting inter-generational equity, then all kudos to them.
An example of this would be a born-boomer investment-property owner who has Xer long-term tenants. Here, the owner would be doing the right thing by offering the Xer tenants an option to buy it at the owner’s historical cost, plus CPI indexing, plus all the other jiggling with rent, mortgage interest, maintenance etc. You get the idea here, I hope – such a transaction would have the effect of giving the (unearned) capital-gain windfall to the Xer/s, without leaving the boomer actually out of pocket.
Gummo Trotsky wrote:
“Paul, . . . your 15 year span for boomers encompassed a lot of different life experiences and a far from homogenous group. A “boomer’ born in 1961 is going to have a lot more in common with an “Xer� born in 1962 than they are with a 1946 boomer�.
Umm, if you would defy your own fatwa and read this http://paulwatson.blogspot.com/2006/02/ten-ways-in-which-ive-got-nothing-in.html , you will see that such a statement, while intuitively obvious, is simply not true. Admittedly, it is much safer to posit the boomer/Xer generation gap at three (not one) years remove (1961-1964), and accordingly I mostly so do. But I didn’t say or suggest, above, that the 1962-born are plainly Xers (For the record, I think that they are borderline, but enough already of scoring minute, off-topic debating points.)
One stark 1961 vs 1962 stat that you might just be interested in though, Gummo, is the huge difference in DSP recipient rates between the two cohorts (same URL). When I first saw that graph, I shook bodily – it was incomprehensible, other than in terms of a deep generation gap that, given its small date *width*, is unprecedented in history, AFAICT.
But never mind the stats, Gummo – just dream on in DSP-land, you lucky bitch.
Jason Soon,
(Changes hats from autistic gay arsehole to argumentative lawyer-type, although I’m not really sure that there’s *that* much of a difference.)
You cite *contract* in support of your pro-gay marriage argument. Grrr! Your law degree obviously short-changed you in the company/corporations law area – see my above musings on groups vs entities theory http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/05/17/discrimination-and-same-sex-marriage/#comment-75892 , and read: SJ Stoljar, Groups and Entities: An Enquiry into Corporate Theory (ANU Press, Canberra, 1973). Contract alone cannot make a “groupâ€? into an “entityâ€?, only third-party (“publicâ€?) recognition can.
This is a fatwa?
No-one needs visit your blog to see that you make too much of the boomer/x divide – it’s evident in most of the comments you post elsewhere.
And there I was, thinking it was merely a statement of my own opinion, loaded a little, perhaps, in the general direction of “and I’m not alone in thinking this.”
What the hell, I took a look – broke my own fatwa, as it were. Merely confirmed what I’ve thought already – you’re a boring twat with only one string on your tiny violin. When it comes down to it, your definition of boomers & Xers is tailored to maximise your opportunities for bitching about your own situation.
I think we are speaking at cross purposes here, Paul. I have no idea what the distinction between groups and entities has to do with marriage rights and I am arguing normatively. I am not a legal positivist and could care less if law professors happen to worship the anti-individualist statutory foundations of some aspects of current law without any regard to liberal first principles.
Thordaddy: I argue only that adults in this country have the right and responsibility to make their own decisions – and their own mistakes – about their personal relationships.
I don’t have any desire to make everyone the same as me, the world would indeed be a boring place if we were all alike, I simply believe that our government has no business restricting the legal recognition of relationships to people it approves of. In order to make laws restricting our behaviour, our government is obliged to demonstrate that such behaviour is damaging to the community.
Heterosexual people are currently entitled to get married – for love, for money, for sex, for a visa, for parental approval, or for Austudy – all I ask is that (given we live in a secular society, and that there is no evidence that gay marriage damages the community) same-sex couples are afforded the right to make all the same decisions rather than have John Howard or John Heard make them on their behalf.
Kate2,
Can you articulate why discrimination against “homosexuality” is wrong especially if one is a heterosexual?
I can articulate it, thordaddy.
Discrimination is wrong.
Whoa – away for three days and this thread seems to still have legs! Can I offer another perspective? Not of my personal views (set out above), but about the nature of this arguement. It seems to me that one can come to a view of gay marriage on either emotional or principled grounds. Neither is bad in itself, but if your (say) support is on emotional grounds, then you really have no way of countering someone opposing gay marriage on either emotional or principled grounds.
That’s why so many above try to argue a principled approach, and the most often implied principles seem to be
1. equal taxation and benefits principles for all
2. no discrimination against people who wish to marry; and
3. parties to a marriage must be consenting adults with equal bargaining power.
All of which are fine – but if one relies upon a set of principles such as these, be prepared for others to test your principles by offering alternative principled outcomes which are obviously undesireable.
Though not stated above, this is what the discussions about bestialty, polygamy and incestuous marriages are about, because if by appying the principles you cannot at the same time support gay marriage, and eliminate the other undesireable forms of marriage – then your principles are either inappropriate, or incomplete.
I have a view on this myself, but I have a principled opposition to excessively long posts, so I will keep my powder dry for the moment.
Six of them, and antennae. Were there to be a nuclear war sometime between now and having to go to work tomorrow* this thread would be the only surviving form of primitive life.
…
*fingers crossed
I’m one half of The Muriels which JT spoke about. We’ve been together for 12.5 years and have been trying to conceive for nearly 3 years. How allowing us to legally recognise our relationship would harm anyone is beyond me.
Watson, JT did not deserve the missive you aimed at her. Straight allies like her are exactly what we need to help change the laws in this country, and she has taken the time to get to know us and ask us what it’s like to walk in our shoes. And more than asking, she actually understands.
Maybe you could spend less time being agressive and more time showing compassion, just as we ask heterosexual Australians to show compassion toward us.
Er, RH, as an in-house LP lesbian I think I did comment immediately on Paul Watson’s abuse of Jahteh. (18 MAY 8.12PM) Perhaps my language was not harsh enough. Basically I tried to be subtle in order to not sink to his level. Perhaps I should have said: THAT COMMENT WAS UNACCEPTABLE. I DEMAND AN APOLOGY ON BEHALF OF JAHTEH.
Mark,
If a gay male were seeing two men, one HIV positive and the other HIV negative, would it be “wrong” for him to discriminate against the man that was HIV positive in matters of sex?
hold hands with me, comrades – ignore him, and he will go away
all together now – * ommmmmm*
Thordaddy
You ask in what areas of law gays are discriminated against that you as a straight man are not. Taking marriage out of the equation altogether, and dealing with de facto relationships only, how about the following:
Superanuuation splitting
Taxation offsets
Medicare Safety Rebate
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Defence Forces
Veteran’s Benefits
Straight de facto couples (ie not married) have access to all of these things. Gay de facto couples don’t.
Now, you were saying?
It’s like a mozzie bite, Zoe, you can’t stop scratching the itch no matter how hard you try.
OK, I really mean it this time.
Thordaddy, I have asked on several occassions to stop flooding this thread with the same identical argument repeated over and over and over again. You do not listen or respond to anyone’s attempt to respond, proving that you are only interested in shouting over the top of people and ‘hearing’ your own voice.
Enough is enough. I have placed you in moderation in order to create space for other people. I will check the moderation filter when I have the chance and if you are actually saying anything new, I will let the comment through (when I have the chance). However, if you have nothing new to say, I would suggest that you simply move on.
Yes, you can Mindy, you really,really can – if necessary, you can type out a comment then delete it! Here, just hold my hand and close your eyes …
*ommmmmmmm*
Superanuuation splitting
Taxation offsets
Medicare Safety Rebate
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Defence Forces
Veteran’s Benefits
There is no need to redefine the meaning of marriage to provide equal access to these for same sex partners. Most Australians would support it too!
There – we’re agreed
TB, sure, but why exactly can’t you find room in your heart to allow myself and my partner the legal recognition and ceremony that you have access to?
Try to answer without relying on arguments centred around procreation, Religion or history.
I’m utterly unable to see how there can be any reply that stays within the bounds of rationality. Perhaps the emotion attached to this issue by opponents of same sex marriage reflects how shaky the heterosexual institution actually is?
Mark
There IS no rational answer.
Quite right!
What? A retreat into agnosticism? Never!
There is a rational answer. It begins by knocking down that nonsense Mark posted above:
“Discrimination is wrong”.
Such comments aren’t helpful. At lunch I discriminated between sushi and a turkey brie roll, but no-one’s fundamental human rights were trashed. Note too: rights have no meaning other than as things that stick to men and women. Sometimes we make false idols of ideas (equality, as if it were a good, per se) and terms (rights are also the wrong way to get around an Aussie roundabout).
What I think we mean is: ‘unjust discrimination should be discouraged’.
This is a point on which all good people can agree. However, just what constitutes justice or an injustice when it comes to marriage is informed by a variety of factors (religion, biology, culture, legal theory, the attractiveness or otherwise of your arranged marriage partner).
On this point, good people can – and obviously do, differ. A cacophony of competing opinions, however, doesn’t mean that there is no overarching score, rather that the players are out of tune.
(…unfortunately, I cannot respond to comments posted here – well, not for ages and ages and you’ll get sad – so send me an email if you’re really snarky)
Differing and discriminating, two different things, Dreaddy. Between which we need to discriminate. The first is fine, the second is wrong.
I’m sure those of our RWDB friends who argue that Ahmenijad is a terrible chappy for wanting to wipe Israel out (and I agree with them) will realise that it’s not just that he has a different position on Israel’s legitimacy, but discriminates against its right to be a state.
Kim, you get an immediate reply, lady (“,)
I didn’t ‘differ’ between sushi and the roll, I disriminated between the two; and to the detriment of the roll I might add (and just did).
This was not, despite secular pieties, an intrinsically evil act.
Equality is not a good in itself and thus, discrimination is not always wrong (as Mark would have it). We discriminate against children in re: drivers licenses and against violent criminals in re: freedom of movement.
When we jettison robust absolutes (G-d, the Good, Desperate Housewives) we weak lumps of flesh tend to make demi-gods out of silly ideas or mere terms.
Such things only cloud the already emotive debates (you heard me, I was SHOUTING at grandmothers) that should remain dispassionate.
(but that’s all, I have to sleep sometime)
*discriminated – bugger it!
Well, I’m not sure about that, Dreaddy.
It seems to me that a premise of a liberal society should be that people should be able to order their own relationships provided they do no harm to others. It’s a subset of the principle of freedom of association. In the case of children, they’re not presumed to be able to make rational decisions, and in the case of criminals, they’ve been proven by a judicial process to have done harm in the past. It seems to me that equality is a good in itself and the onus of proof has to be on those who would deprive rational others of that equality where their behaviour causes no harm.
What if we’re all heading to a gas chamber and they stuff us in according to strict principles of equality? It is certainly not good to be treated equally in such a situation.
If something is a good in itself (i.e., love) it is always better to be in possession of it than not.
That’s numerical equality alone, Dreaddy.
But if love is a good in itself, why not let it be expressed in a way that the lovers themselves deem best for them?
At lunch I discriminated between sushi and a turkey brie roll, but no-one’s fundamental human rights were trashed.
I don’t know about anyone else, but when I see a statement like that, I figure that whatever follows from such a premise is going to be pretty fatuous. Dreadnought, you didn’t disappoint me in that regard.
Where you say you discriminated between sushi and a turkey roll, others would say that you made a choice based on your personal preferences; and maybe these personal preferences arose from your discriminating taste in raw fish (or cooked turkey) or an equally discriminating eye for the signs of possible salmonella contamination in take-away food.
That sense of “make a choice” is, at a stretch, available in the use of the word “discriminate” and the sense “acute or knowing” is common usage when we talk about someone – such as yourself – having discriminating tastes. But as you well know, neither of those senses has been in play in this discussion. We’re talking about discriminating against same sex couples in the matter of marriage.
What I think we mean is: ‘unjust discrimination should be discouraged’.
No what we mean is that unjust discrimination (a phrase with a high level of redundancy) is simply not on. Period. Not that we’ll put up with it where it suits the interests of the body politic. That ain’t liberal and it ain’t democratic. We’ll leave the toleration of discrimination to theocracies “guided” democracies and one-party states.
As I said, fatuous.
“At lunch I discriminated between sushi and a turkey brie roll, but no-one’s fundamental human rights were trashed.”
Leaving aside the silly use of the word discriminated, there are several significant differences between your example and discrimination against same-sex couples who would like to get married.
1. You were choosing between two inanimate objects (I won’t go into your impact on animal life, because that would confuse the issue here, particularly as I am a vegan).
2. You were choosing for yourself ONLY.
3. You did not create a systemic rule, but rather made one individual choice.
4. No other person was significantly impacted by your decision.
5. There were no human rights involved in your decision (with an emphasis on the word human here).
6. I could go on, but this is really quite a silly example.
At lunch I discriminated between sushi and a turkey brie roll, but no-one’s fundamental human rights were trashed.
If you ever need a lawyer (or a priest), you know the author of this shouldn’t be on your consideration list!
Guys (he said inclusively), no-one (well almost no-one) is trying to prevent your relationships – fill your boots so to speak. Also, most Australians would support the equal treatment of non-traditional households for tax, super and other purposes – while acknowledging the administrative difficulties associated with implementation.
What most Australians object to is the arbitrary and unecessary redefinition of a perfectly useful word (marriage – look it up) to make its primary definition meaningless. Invent your own word, and leave the existing one alone.
Try to answer without relying on arguments centred around procreation, Religion or history.
Fair enough Muriels, I’ll try to defend marriage without referring to the three pillars upon which it is built – even if the request is unreasonable.
Refer to my principles post above, and let me know what your underlying principles are. Then be prepared for me to test them.
Regardless of how the arguement progresses, know that I have only best wishes for you and your partner.
Wow, what an enormous thread. As previously indicated on this forum, I am gay. I’m in a long term relationship (7 years plus) but have no desire to formalise the relationship or celebrate it in some kind of ceremony. Nonetheless I do believe that same sex marriage should be enshrined in law.
Australia has become steadily more accepting of homosexuality since the 1960s but there is still a long way to go. Currently the most homophobic cohort in our society is male teenagers and youth. This cohort can make life intolerable for their gay peers and all too often assault or even kill other males they believe are gay.
Enshrining gay marriage in law is one way of furthering community acceptance and reducing the consequences of homophobia. This is because, to some extent at least, public norms and morality follow law. If same sex marriage was a legal possibility I think it would speed up community acceptance of homosexuality as “legitimate” and “normal”.
What most Australians object to is the arbitrary and unecessary redefinition of a perfectly useful word (marriage – look it up) to make its primary definition meaningless. Invent your own word, and leave the existing one alone.
So what you’re saying is that, given a choice between fairness and justice on the one hand, and semantics on the other, most Australians would go for semantics everytime?
Fortunately, this debate is not about The Dictionary Definition of “Marriage,” but whether same-sex couples should be granted access (if they so desire it) to the same legal recognition–and therefore to the same rights and privileges that such recognition automatically entails–that heterosexual couples currently enjoy by default.
Granting legal recognition to same-sex marriage will not render meaningless the “traditional” definition of the word. It will render it obsolete, but that is a different (and good) thing.
Incidentally (not that it really matters) . . .
(marriage – look it up)
I did. And here’s what I found:
That’s right AV. It is conservatives who are now running around changing legislation to redefine the meaning of marriage.
It should also be noted that it isn’t only gays and lesbians who have a stake in the legal definition of marriage. About one in one thousand children are born with a significant gender abnormality. Why should the law be interfering in the choices these people make about marriage? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
So what you’re saying is that, given a choice between fairness and justice on the one hand, and semantics on the other
No AV, there is no need to make that choice. You can have marriage, same sex civil unions , fairness and justice all at the one time!
Easy!
No AV, there is no need to make that choice. You can have marriage, same sex civil unions , fairness and justice all at the one time!
Well, almost: if civil unions entitled same-sex couples to all the same legal rights and privileges that heterosexual married couples enjoy. That is–if you had a situation where civil unions would be, as far as the law is concerned, the “same-sex version” of heterosexual marriage, and where marriages would be “the straight version” of civil unions–that would almost be as fair and just as simply altering the legal definition of marriage so as to include same-sex couples.
But here’s the rub. At best, the situation described above would amount to a silly and unnecessary duplication: having what is to all intents and purposes the same legal institution going by two different names (“marriage” or “civil union”), depending on the gender of the participants, just to placate those who cannot abide the thought of legally recognised same-sex relationships–even if they engender the same rights and privileges as heterosexual marriages–being described as “marriages.”
At worst, claiming that the word “marriage” will somehow be tainted if it is applied to same-sex relationships is sort of reminiscent of the days when it was thought that the water in a drinking fountain would be tainted if certain races were allowed to drink from it.
The basis for the few legal decisions in the States upholding same-sex marriage is in part on the analogy with the miscegenation laws that remained on the books of many states into the 60s and 70s.
That’s why so many above try to argue a principled approach, and the most often implied principles seem to be
1. equal taxation and benefits principles for all
2. no discrimination against people who wish to marry; and
3. parties to a marriage must be consenting adults with equal bargaining power.
All of which are fine – but if one relies upon a set of principles such as these, be prepared for others to test your principles by offering alternative principled outcomes which are obviously undesireable.
Though not stated above, this is what the discussions about bestialty, polygamy and incestuous marriages are about, because if by appying the principles you cannot at the same time support gay marriage, and eliminate the other undesireable forms of marriage – then your principles are either inappropriate, or incomplete.
If one of the implied principles is that “parties to a marriage must be consenting adults with equal bargaining power,” that rules out bestiality immediately. Likewise incest involving minors. That leaves us with polygamy/polyandry and incest between consenting adults. If polygamy or polyandry doesn’t automatically result in unjust outcomes for one or more parties, I don’t see any problem with their legal recognition. (I’m happy to stand corrected on this, though.) As for incest between consenting adults: most of us would probably find that revolting. But revulsion is an emotional response, and if the only argument against Billy-Bob marrying his sister Mary-Sue is an emotional one (again, willing to stand corrected), then why not let them marry? Having said that, I think you overstate the case as regards the “implied principles” underpinning the pro-SSM side of the argument. We’re arguing for an end to discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage law; we’re not arguing for a free-for-all.
And there is, perhaps, an unspoken assumption behind the anti-SSM side of the debate: “There is a parity between homosexuality, bestiality, incest and polyamory, such that if you grant legal recognition to same-sex couples, you must (i.e. there is no good reason not to) likewise recognise these other relationships.” This is essentially the same unspoken assumption that lies behind arguments against any form of civil rights for homosexuals: e.g. “There is a parity between homosexuality, bestiality, incest and polyamory, such that if you decriminalise homosexuality you must (i.e. there is no longer any good reason not to) likewise decriminalise the others.” People opposed to SSM on these grounds who are also opposed to the criminalisation of homosexuality are contradicting themselves.
If you disagree–if you think there are important differences between homosexuality and the other items on the list–then why wouldn’t these differences remain just as important if and when same-sex marriages are given legal recognition?
I think there are inequalities within every human relationship. That’s what makes them challenging, and requires maturity in the participants (“rational judgement”, if you like). However, I think any objective look at polygamy and polyandry in practise demonstrates that these inequalities are exacerbated. In addition, as practised usually where there is only one male, structural gender relations come into play.
Hence I believe that it is justifiable to invoke the harm principle in these arrangements.
With regard to same-sex relationships, you could make an argument that power imbalance is minimised because the gender/sex/sexuality codes are inflected differently. That might be somewhat idealised when measured against many actually existing relationships, but then most opposite sex ones I’ve observed too carry the potential for abuse, and heartbreak.
There are also harm arguments against incest – to individual psychic stability and to any potential offspring. Frankly, you don’t want to mix the sorts of emotions that are normally latent within kin relationships with sexual tension. It’s got to be a recipe for disaster.
But I think all these slippery slope arguments are basically red herrings. Two consenting adults with at least formal equality in bargaining power should be able to do what they like.
However, I think any objective look at polygamy and polyandry in practise demonstrates that these inequalities are exacerbated. In addition, as practised usually where there is only one male, structural gender relations come into play.
You’re right. We don’t know what legalised polygamy or polyandry would look like in a modern Western society, but in order to fulfil Peter’s third “implied principle” it would have to at least take the form of three parties married to each other, rather than–as is more common where such practices are legal–two parties married to a third.
But I think all these slippery slope arguments are basically red herrings.
Here’s a little thought experiment for the anti-SSM side. Let’s imagine that the law recognised no relationships, hetero or otherwise, and that you are in the fortuitious position of being able to decide which relationships deserve legal recognition and which don’t. There are, however, a couple of constraints on the decision-making process: (i) it must be a process of elimination, and (ii) your rationale for eliminating any particular relationship must not make reference to any other kind of relationship (e.g. you couldn’t eliminate relationship x on the basis that it is not relationship y). This forces you to weigh each case on its merits and demerits, not on its difference from a norm. Which would you eliminate, and why?
Isn’t there one gay “marriage” advocate honest enough to take their advocacy to its very logical conclusion?
Will no gay “marriage” advocate answer the following questions?
If 3 gay males petition to get a state-sanction marriage, what will the gay “marriage” advocates say for this gay “marriage?”
Will you say, “No, we can’t give you a state-sanctioned marriage because you violate the ‘couple’ criteria?”
Likewise, if 2 gay brothers petition to get a state-sanction marriage, what will the gay “marriage” advocates say for this gay “marriage?”
Will you say, “No, we can’t give you a state-sanctioned marriage because you violate the ‘non-related’ criteria?”
Remember, by any definition these are gay “marriages…?”
Or, they ARE NOT?
When you avoid these very simple and straightforward questions, how is one supposed to think that your motivation for advocating for gay “marriage” is not rooted in deception?
“Enshrining gay marriage in law is one way of furthering community acceptance and reducing the consequences of homophobia. This is because, to some extent at least, public norms and morality follow law. If same sex marriage was a legal possibility I think it would speed up community acceptance of homosexuality as “legitimateâ€? and “normalâ€?.”
Steve, I think that is an extremely important and valid point. Thank you for articulating it so well.
“We’re talking about discriminating against same sex couples in the matter of marriage.”
This is not, again, a necessarily bad thing. Certainly not on the face of it. We discriminate against child-child couples in the matter of marriage and we discriminate against man-child couples in the matter of marriage. Such things are obviously worthwhile.
I hate to be pedantic, but you’re enslaved by only the third most common usage for the noun:
“dis·crim·i·na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nshn)
n.
1. The act of discriminating. 2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment. 3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.”
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Equality is not a good in itself. It cannot be: because ‘discrimination’ is probably necessary for injustice, but it is not sufficient. You need something else, the withholding of a true good (bodily liberty, love, life, etc.). Only then does discrimination become ‘unjust’ and always wrong.
I might add, discrimination (this time in a sense often considered ‘fair’ or ‘just’) is the basis for affirmative action.
I’m with Wittgenstein on this one, often the language games we get caught up in reveal the secular idols we’ve elevated. Like most superstition, conclusions based on such ideas (or absence of ideas) are often at the expense of rational thought/debate.
The fact that some think that ‘unfair discrimination’ is a tautology demonstrates how far this nonsense (not to mention this impoverished use of the English language) has penetrated.
If discrimination is not always wrong (and it’s clearly not) then we have to come up with better arguments for why ‘gay marriage’ should be introduced.
If all you’ve got left are personal experiences, emotive examples and appeals to ‘fundamental human rights’ that apparently exist purely because you believe in them (sexual inclinations are still not mentioned in the UN Declaration of Human Rights): why is such an argument more satisfying or any more ‘rational’ than the Catholic view?
It’s not. Saying as much reveals an ‘acceptable’ form of bigotry, not an unassailable rational case.
Let’s have the argument on solid ground, with all our biases in full view. Let’s demolish the simple supersititions first and then take on the deeper issues. I think we’d all agree that marriage is important enough a topic to warrant such careful consideration (“,)
“sexual inclinations are still not mentioned in the UN Declaration of Human Rights”
What do you mean ’still’? It is not a document that gets regularly updated. In fact, it has never been updated.
DREADNOUGHT,
You might be with Wittgenstein on this one, but is Wittgenstein with you?
I doubt it, as his philosophical concerns in Philosophical Investigations (sitting in the stack of books to the right of my keyboard) aren’t at all political – it’s entirely about the use of language. The political application of “language-games” comes later – and you have, incidentally, misconstrued old Ludwig’s notion of a language-game to suit your own argument, just as you’re attempting, once again, to redefine discrimination (this time with the help of a dictionary – I have one too, it’s the old OED schools edition in the bookshelf a few rooms away) to suit your own position.
No one here is “slave” to a particular sense of discrimination. In the political context the third sense is the precise sense to use. Recruiting the other two to confuse the issue is vapid.
My concern is, at least in the post above, also with the use of language. Unfortunately, the misuse of the same in this instance reveals political biases that some here masquerade as absolute truths.
(Having stunk up Mark’s box(!) enough already, however, I should probably debate elsewhere).
John Heard AKA Dreadnought, having briefly perused your site and witnessed your often inarticulate interjections on Insight last week, I think you are the last person to lecture others on plain English.
You haven’t been able to mount an even remotely convincing case for why gay marriage should be opposed. I’m not sure why I or anyone else should bother responding to you.
(At the risk of feeding the troll . . .)
Isn’t there one gay “marriage� advocate honest enough to take their advocacy to its very logical conclusion?
But we have.
We argue that the logical conclusion of granting legal recognition to same-sex marriages is a situation that is fair and just to straights and nonstraights alike.
There is no logical connection between homosexuality and polyamory, bestiality, incest, paedophilia or any other evil sexual practices you might be able to come up with. There is, as I have pointed out in an earlier post, an unspoken assumption underlying the anti-same-sex-marriage side of the debate that such a connection exists: but this assumption is born of personal prejudice, not logic. (Just like the assumption that a connection exists between “having dark skin” and “intellectual inferiority” is one born of personal prejudice, not logic.)
Now, let us examine your own logic, thordaddy. You are obviously of the opinion that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to legal recognition for incestuous marriage. The unspoken assumption here is precisely that which I was talking about in the earlier post: “There is a parity between homosexuality, bestiality, incest and polyamory, such that if you grant legal recognition to same-sex couples, you must (i.e. there is no good reason not to) likewise recognise these other relationships.â€? But–and I know I’m repeating myself here–this is just an updated version of the kind of argument that has been levelled against the decriminalisation of homosexuality: “There is a parity between homosexuality, bestiality, incest and polyamory, such that if you decriminalise homosexuality, you must (i.e. there is no good reason not to) also decriminalise the other items on the list.”
Given this reasoning, thordaddy, can you please explain the following: homosexuality has been decriminalised in Australia for quite a few years now. Why are there still legal proscriptions against incest? Or bestiality? Or paedophilia? Shouldn’t these practices be legal by now, also? Was it a mistake to decriminalise homosexuality in the first place?
If you don’t think it was, then your position is logically inconsistent, given the assumption underlying your argument against same-sex marriage.
AV, you make good points. However, I have placed Thordaddy in moderation for trolling this thread, so I would appreciate it if you didn’t direct your comments towards him or invite him to repeat his one and only argument yet again.
Thank you!
There is so much talk about keeping up tradition. But no body seems to have looked at gay tradition (Or at least in the first 100 responses).
Here is what keeping up (some) gay “tradition’s” will help to increase or maintain:
1. – Suicide
Yep, i think it might have something to do with all that secret keeping and fear
2. – Electric Shock Therapy
3. – Running away, leaving family etc.
4. – Denial
and so on and so forth …
LET US GET MARRIED.
I’m all in favour of legislating for civil unions which are legally equivalent to marriages and which heterosexual and homosexual couples can enter into.
If more than two people want to have the state recognise their relationship, I’m in all favour of that too, but I think that this isn’t very likely at the moment. What’s wrong with having a 3-way (or more) relationship recognised?
Sacha, I think that issue was canvassed earlier on this thread, but it’s too long for me to be bothered scrolling up to find where.
Yes, 326 comments is too many to look through! Just felt like writing what I thought.
Since we’re here…
Equal rights bid for gay couples
“NEW laws to grant gay couples equal rights in areas including tax, health, welfare and superannuation are likely be in place by the end of the year.
Key Howard Government conservatives are backing the push for equal rights for gay couples being led by Queensland Liberal MP Warren Entsch.
Mr Entsch has told The Sunday Age he would be introducing a private member’s bill later this year to recognise same-sex interdependent relationships under all federal legislation.”
And if anyone’s interested in polyandry, this here is an excellent personal account.
Thanks for that A.Kim. The quote at the end made me feel quite hopeful that it would get through:
This is very good news.
I support anyone who puts forward private members bill on these issues. Good on Warren Entsch for doing this. I signed his petition and I hope that everyone else interested in these things also signs it.
Something I don’t understand is how people can think that “same-sex marriage” would undermine marriage. I think I can understand it, but it’s very difficult!
i personaly think that whoever thinks that same sex marriage is bad they should open up there mind because if your saying that if two people love each other very much and just happen to be the same sex cant get married ? thats a bunch of bs because thats like sayin if u love a man/women but they just happen to not speak the same language or is missing an arm or a leg and people say you cant love them or get married to them. it may not seem like the same situation but it is. its dicrimination and dicrimination is wrong! so jhust open up your mind a littlw bit and see the bigger picture