Or so SBS reported tonight, in the context of Elton John’s nuptials. Just you wait and see, old man.
The ABC website has more of the PM’s comments:
“I believe very strongly that marriage is exclusively a union for life of a man and woman to the exclusion of others,” he said.
“That’s the common understanding of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition and I would be opposed to the recognition of civil unions.”
It might just be me but I thought Howard came across as very sour after the vision of a couple enjoying recognition of their shared love. What is it about love that cultural conservatives want to constrain, narrow down and straighten? I’ve never yet heard a convincing argument as to why civil unions (NB: not marriages, PM) pose any “threat to the institution of marriage”. If I decided I wanted to spend my life with a woman, and have that commitment legally recognised and celebrated, I completely fail to see how this stops those who want to do the same for their heterosexual partnerships, or derogates in any way from the sincerity of their commitment.
I must say, when watching the news tonight, I was very struck by the resonances between Howard’s attitude and this comment on a Catallaxy thread by Tim Makinson:
Rafe: I am amused by your equation of âcultural conservativesâ? with âpeople who support humane and civilised valuesâ?.
To take a recent cultural conservative bugbear issue, how is opposing gay marriage âsupporting humane and civilised valuesâ?? What is âhumane and civilisedâ? about Creationism? To take an older issue, how was the US cultural conservativesâ opposition to Desegregation âsupporting humane and civilised valuesâ??
Iâm not claiming that all issues that cultural conservatives support are disconnected with what is âhumane and civilisedâ? â just that a sufficient number are disconnected to make your equation absurd.
Isn’t celebrating and protecting love between two people humane and civilised?
Although, for it to happen here, the federal ALP had better wake up to itself on the issue of the Defence of Marriage Act. We live in hope.
I really believe that it is about the conservative view that fun, or happiness, is in and of itself a bad thing. Like divorce – why would you want to ban divorce unless you believe that “life is pain” (in the words of a very wise pirate).
This is mostly white men who don’t like their wives very much, and they’ll be damned if anyone else is going to be happy.
Fuck ‘em. Fuck ‘em all.
Agreed, Anna, except I’d be inclined not to fuck all white men who don’t like their wives very much
Hee hee! Good point.
And also, to get on my little hobby horse for a moment…
Labor will never change as long as well-meaning committed lefties go elsewhere. There are some of us fighting very hard, but politics is numbers, so those of you who are shitty at Labor: don’t leave when you get mad – STAY! Please!!
I’d fuck the Mayor of San Francisco though (pictured above marrying the two happy brides!)
On your point, Anna, it’s a hard one. At least when I was living in the States the Democratic Party (despite its horrendous flaws) was at least open to influence by organised citizens – not least through the primary system. And in some metropolitan areas, you can get some really good things happening, as in SF with civil unions (actually marriages – though I prefer the European/Canadian model) and some social justice stuff that makes a difference. The decentralised nature of the American polity helps (local government is much more meaningful) and although you can reasonably take aim at many aspects of US democracy, it does contain features that make it hard for party establishments to control everything all of the time. It’s basically a lot more freewheeling. I’m not sure I’d like to buy into the internal ALP culture, from what I’ve heard.
I seem to have used the word “least” repeatedly and unconsciously in that last comment – must have been thinking of the “least of two evils” problem at some level
Anna — you’re right about politics-is-numbers, of course. But I’m dangerously close to concluding that Labor will never change no matter what anybody does. People have been passionately saying to me what you say here since 1989, and I’ve been listening to them since 1989, and my reward was to see promoted to the leadership the self-detonating punch-up artist who brought you the expression ‘quality box’.
They waste good people, they promote hacks and puppets, they give the leadership to people who will make elections unwinnable, they sacrifice and wreck the political careers of women right and left, and the factional algebra makes the workings of the party a total mystery to everyone but the machine men. The only reason I still vote for them is to try to keep the other mob out, and we have failed for nine years at that as well.
Leave? No. Despair? Yes.
You’re right of course. There aren’t enough numbers in the world to make politics good or noble. But I still think it’s worth making the Party you vote for better.
Failing that, we can just give everyone a gin and tonic or five and tell ‘em to stop trying to make everyone else miserable. Spread the Festivus cheer!
A gin or tonic or five is a good idea, politics or not!
I must say though that the rollover by the ALP on Howard’s “man and a woman” marriage amendments last year was very very very depressing indeed. The history of state ALP governments is that, with some honourable exceptions, they’ve had to be dragged kicking and screaming to recognising civil rights for the gay and lesbian communities. Yet we go on voting for them. Hmmm.
We in Perth being some of the honourable exceptions!!
But to be fair, as shitty as it was, their reasoning was that they weren’t stopping anything that ever had a chance of happening that close to an election; and, in order to “wedge” the ALP, Howard’s bill gave gay couples super rights that they didn’t have before.
Voting against it would have been a symbolic stand, but very little else.
But I’m not going to defend it very strongly – I was very sad to be a part of it.
A fight worth winning, for sure. But in the meantime – just do it anyway. Who gives a bugger what silly old tossers like Howard think on these matters? Stitch up your own ceremony – tell Conservatives to bite your latte, and thumb our nose at the state, all at the same time.
Then, get a good lawyer to do your will right, and you’ll get around most (sadly, not all) of the legal disabilities about passing assets on.
Time has come to ignore these authoritarian wankers wherever possible. I know I do!
Agreed, Lefty E, but sadly Amanda knocked my proposal on the head!
Anna, I understand the political logic, but really, on principle, it’s indefensible. Think of what power that symbolism would have had. You never know, the ALP might have picked up a few votes from the Greens! The average Joe or Jill are probably never going to hear about it, or will forget about it after they’ve read the paper. The religious nutjobs and homophobes aren’t going to believe the ALP taking a stand in favour of “marriage only between a man and a woman” anyway, and for the ALP to do so, really does stink, I’m afraid.
I agree, seeing Nicola Roxon prove to the Christians that we really do hate teh gays ways very very depressing.
I said that not really to defend it as a moral act, but to suggest that perhaps Labor isn’t quite as doomed as people think. More heartening is the fact that most of the Caucus was very very angry, and didn’t support the logic.
Sorry Anna, like your blogwork, but Im a bit tired of the one-way street that is the “better in than out” mantra. How about some action from the ALP end? Gimme something to want to join!
Jeez, I’d even settle for a couple of concrete examples from the last ten years where the ALP left won on a policy issue. There doesnt seem to be the slightest point in joining a perennial 30%, doomed – to – be -screwed -over -forever- at -national -conference clique when most of the few progressive policy ideas to be taken up were fleeced straight from the community sector peak orgs anyway.
Perhaps if Missy came out, the cause would gain a new respectability even for cultural conservatives?
LE – the trick is to follow my gin and tonic or five policy.
Much easier to be optimistic. Which I have to be since it’s my livelihood!
And, WA Labor has achieved a great deal for gay and lesbian couples.
Why do gays feel they need to take the same vows as men and women? Marriage is symbolic of procreation, which gays can’t practice. Why can’t Mormons marry multiple wives? In fact, why isn’t someone allowed to marry his or her dog? Don’t laugh it was tried in the US court.
No matter what gays say theirs isn’t the same relationship between a man and a woman and can never be. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be allowed to find happiness and comfort in a relationship. But why encroach on a formalization that was never meant for gays.
Anne
” I really believe that it is about the conservative view that fun, or happiness, is in and of itself a bad thing”.
Glad it is an opinion rather than established fact because what you say is really quite offensive and lacking in depth..
Think of a very public union from the recent past. Ever look at the Ron/ Nancy Reagan’s relationship. It was probably a match made in heaven of two people who adored each other. They weren’t happy you say? Even left leaning Time magazine ran a long story on this union. Andrew Sullivan, when he was sane, wrote a piece in the White Times referring to it as the love story of the 20 century. Go read it.
You are suggesting that I am unhappy in my relationship, despite the fact that I have been with he same gal for over 20 years and lived a happy life. I am living proof your comment is nonsense.
Have you ever given it some thought there women who also conservative and don’t wish the act of marriage to be changed?
“This is mostly white men who don’t like their wives very much, and they’ll be damned if anyone else is going to be happy”.
This is a truly shocking statement, probably one of he most offensive I have ever seen. Those of my friends who are conservative seem to have very happy lives. My life wouldn’t be complete without my wife. In fact I hope I die first as I couldn’t imagine living without her and she isn’t a conservative. And know, she is not expected to work in the house as help is provided.
And honestly how could you slag only white men? Have you ever considered what the plight of a woman is in severe Islamic countries? You think male/female relationships in Afr/ American households is that different?
“Fuck’em fuck’em”. Really?!!!!
Joe, read the post. It’s about civil unions. Marriage has a much higher cultural salience in the US – in Britain, and Canada, and European countries, most gays and lesbians support civil unions. Same here, I would think. One reason is that some people are critical of a lot of the stereotypes that go with marriage, and another is that people are interested in symbols that recognise new ways of doing partnered love.
Kim,
“I’d fuck the Mayor of San Francisco”
He’s quite gay.
Well, there goes the gin-high.
The point is Joe, that it’s a bunch of straight people trying to take away a right that they’ll never need.
Unless you think that the only reason people get married to someone of the opposite sex is that they can’t get a gay marriage, then it’s completely unfair and irrational to stop others from showing society that they love this person enough to promise to stay with them for ever.
Why would you want to stop that?
Hehe! All the better! You know, Joe, gay men sometimes sleep with women. Sexuality and sexual attraction are quite complex. That’s why I’m against putting people in neat boxes. Each to their own. You and your wife love each other, that’s great. If two women love each other, and want legal recognition of that fact, I don’t see that as an “encroachment” on the meaningfulness of the commitment you’ve made.
Wow! just about every thread here has it in for ‘the Christians’, as if they’re some sort of ‘unclean’ race, because they have an alternative point of view. And Greg, http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/12/22/after-dover/, reckons their feeling of alienation from the left is ‘paradoia’!
Please explain, FaceLift. Why exactly are civil unions between same-sex couples threatening to Christians? I don’t turn up outside churches protesting against marriage, yet some Christians feel it’s their duty (?) to turn up outside registry offices decrying others’ choices? Let us live our lives as we want, and don’t cast any stones in our direction. It’s supposed to be a secular society where everyone has equal rights. I don’t see why religious views should be enshrined in law. Nor, as I’ve said, do I see at all – not in the slightest – why civil unions should be regarded as undermining traditional marriages? Perhaps you can provide the missing rationale?
Joe — I’m straight so I might have this wrong, but surely it’s part of the definition of being gay or lesbian that you don’t WANT ‘the same relationship between a man and a woman’? Call me confused but I would have thought that was the whole point.
‘Marriage is symbolic of procreation?’ I have no idea what you mean by this. Whatever you mean by it, it’s clearly a belief rather than a fact, and as such it shouldn’t be foisted on the rest of us by the law.
My understanding is that the point of gay marriages or civil partnerships is to have public, legal recognition and ratification of the relationship, which among other things ensures legal rights to the same conditions that apply to married couples regarding wills, superannuation and so forth.
I have yet to see a logical explanation, or indeed any explanation, of exactly how this could ‘undermine’ or ‘encroach on’ straight marriages.
Anna, I’m more than happy to have a gin and tonic or five to celebrate the nuptials of Sir Elton, whose devoted slave I’ve been ever since I first heard ‘Come Down in Time’ on *Tumbleweed Connection*, back in the mists of time.
By the way, FaceLift, on the poor Christians thing, what’s with that? You can get your relationship of choice celebrated by society and recognised in law! Gays and lesbians can’t. So I can’t see how adopting the rhetorical tone of an oppressed minority helps you here.
I don’t think civil unions are threatening to Christians, since most wouldn’t give them much thought, exept to consider them an odd arrangement, since marriage is about procreation and forming a family, which is very hard for same sex couples, particularly males.
It’s not really an issue, since the PM is making it clear that he won’t be introducing any legislation, but, as we live in a secular society, I don’t see why homosexual couples wouldn’t be allowed to make a legal commitment in some kind of civil union, but why, since most States already have some sort of provision for their partnership to be recognised? However, marriage is a different matter.
Marriage involves, for a Christian, consummation, which is not possible for a same sex couple, as joe c has already pointed out.
My real point is the amount of offensive rhetoric being trown around about Christians on a couple of threads, particularly this one.
“That’s the common understanding of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition and I would be opposed to the recognition of civil unions.”
I hope that comment comes back to haunt him should he ever try and legislate such an understanding of marriage. Could be a violation of section 116 of the constitution. Could also create an opportunity for the High Court to legitimize gay unions.
Interesting to note Reich’s comments on the positive relationship between sexual repression and authoritarian politics. Could Howard be forcing down urges of his own? I wonder…
FL, I dispute any mention of paradoia or the ‘cleanness’ of race in my post! With hindsight, I should have been more specific with my reference to Greg’s comment http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/12/21/science-wins-in-dover/#comment-44090 . I was mainly referring to the first part:
Also, don’t take the offensive rhetoric personally. If I took everything a commenter on Tim Blair’s site about teh left personally, I’d feel pretty shitty about myself.
He has legislated, Cliff – amendments to the Marriage Act just before last year’s election.
Oops. Too late… must have missed that one.
It would be interesting to see if an argument could be made that such a definition of marriage was, as Howard puts it “Judeo-Christian”, and thus an unconstitutional establishment, though I suppose the line between culture and religion is blurry (if it exists at all).
I think it’s yet another example of Howard importing holus bolus US wedges/culture wars into Oz. There was little or no demand for “gay marriage” as such here, and the idea that the courts would find that it was mandatory to allow really falls down on the fact that we don’t have a bill of rights. But it’s always interesting to see people react as if there’s nothing at all different between the two countries – witness Joe’s assumption that Kim was talking about marriage, when she made it very clear that she was not.
“Hehe! All the better! You know, Joe, gay men sometimes sleep with women”.
What exactly has this to do with marriage?
“If two women love each other, and want legal recognition of that fact, I donât see that as an âencroachmentâ? on the meaningfulness of the commitment youâve made”.
Kim, it seems you hate us and also want to put all right wingers in a neat little box as well. Some/ Most of us on the right donât give shit who someone sleeps with as long as they are of legal age. Most of us don’t care who you live with either
The Definition of marriage is the legal union between a man and woman. If gays want recognition in similar way call it what you like- just don’t called it marriage and expect legal sanction, that’s all. Like most rightees I wouldn’t dream of going to city hall and protesting.
Please, explain to me, why should marriage not only define a single union. Why not a multiple union? Why not allow a “zoo couple” as the guy in the Virginia court case defined it. Tell us, why stop there? For that matter, why not allow the union between different age groups when both parties consent? I would love to understand it the differences.
My reference to my own marriage was to explain to Anna that she was horrendously inaccurate when she stated conservative marriages are unhappy relationships.
Anna
“The point is Joe, that itâs a bunch of straight people trying to take away a right that theyâll never need”.
No, it isn’t taking away any right. Gays demand a right they never had and therefore it isnât taking something away.
“Unless you think that the only reason people get married to someone of the opposite sex is that they canât get a gay marriage, then itâs completely unfair and irrational to stop others from showing society that they love this person enough to promise to stay with them for ever.
Why would you want to stop that?”
Anna, gays don’t need to assume this privilege to prove they love someone. Ask to call it something else. Marriage should not be a word that defines a stable long- term gay relationship. It is not their word to have or use.
You can also explain why stop at gay marriage.
I got a reason not to be in bed with my gal, I’m working. What’s all your excuses? Get to bed people. It’s late!!!!!!
Kim,
‘the rhetorical tone of an oppressed minority’
I don’t feel like I’m part of an oppressed minority. I am positive enough to object to Anna’s tragetted ‘fefea’ opener, and the subsequent ‘the Christians’ remarks. Sounds like Nero blaming the Christians for the fires he started in Rome. If I were oppressed I wouldn’t have the strength to tell you it’s offensive.
Don’t blame us for the labor party’s shortcomings. Rally your leaders like the Christians did when they filled the Great Hall just before the vote on the marriage bill, and wrote thousands of submissions which influenced both sides of politics. We’re not oppressed. We’re not minor!
marriage is about procreation and forming a family, which is very hard for same sex couples, particularly males.
So it’s easier for gals to have a kid? Why just males?
Is there something I don’t know?
Well, FaceLift, it would be reasonable to point out that not all Christians share your view. I don’t. But no doubt Homer will be here in the morning to tell me that Catholics aren’t Christians.
Joe – I don’t hate you, and I don’t hate anyone. I do also recognise that the more genuinely liberal and libertarian elements of the right don’t have a problem with civil unions. I do think there’s a reasonable point to make in that you seem a little blind to the argument that your relationship is legally and socially celebrated, whereas one that I might potentially want to enter (I’m bisexual) is not.
Please note again that I’m not talking about marriage, but civil unions.
But the bed time advice is unequivocally good! Night!
Ok, so you want to call it a civil union then? Go ahead, that’s fine by me and many others on the right.
However it should not be a civil marriage.
Is anyone able to explain to me why we need to stop at gay marriage?
“do also recognise that the more genuinely liberal and libertarian elements of the right don’t have a problem with civil unions”.
Of course. Libertarians don’t have an opinion about anything other than smaller govt. Yes, we have out mad uncles and aunts too.
White men?
You’ll find that some of the people most aggressively against gay “marriage” are Africans and Afro-American Christians.
“There was little or no demand for âgay marriageâ? as such here, and the idea that the courts would find that it was mandatory to allow really falls down on the fact that we donât have a bill of rights.”
True, but we still have an establishment clause… and if Howard’s amendments are based, as he says, on a “Judeo-Christian” concept of marriage… then it wouldn’t hurt to test them in court.
“Marriage is symbolic of procreation, which gays canât practice.”
So if a couple cannot procreate, then their marriage should not be allowed? If you oppose gay marriage on the basis of that logic, then you would also have to invalidate many heterosexual marriages also.
When my mother and step-father were married, they had already had all the children they will ever have in previous marriages (or in my case, out of wedlock). In fact, by that point, my stepfather had undergone a vasectomy and my mother had her tubes tied. So despite the fact that their marriage was recognized as legitimate, they could not practice the procreation of which their marriage was supposed to be symbolic. In fact, by your logic, my mother should divorce my stepfather and marry my father… which will not, and should not happen, because their marriage is symbolic of love, commitment, and a desire to have a shared future… which is a raison detre accepted in heterosexual marriages, but supposedly not in the case of homosexuals. Perhaps we should also ban post-menopausal women from marrying also? I doubt you would argue for that… but the logic of your argument implies such an position despite you.
“Why canât Mormons marry multiple wives?”
I don’t know… but it is certainly not because procreation cannot be practiced in such a union. In fact, the chances of procreation would be enhanced by such a union would it not? I won’t go any further, because I don’t want this to turn into a debate over polygamy (which is beside the issue of gay marriage) because I don’t really have a solid opinion on it.
“why isnât someone allowed to marry his or her dog?”
Strawman. Dogs cannot enter into contracts, because they are dogs. Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Dogs have no concept of a contract, and have no way of expressing consent in any way admissable. They have no concept of marriage, love (at least in the human sense) or really any of the variables involved in marriage (except perhaps loyalty). This is on top of the fact that bestiality is sexual assault.
“No matter what gays say theirs isnât the same relationship between a man and a woman and can never be.”
Relationships between men and women vary greatly between different couples also. Is marriage dependent upon a couples’ relationship conforming to a particular standard? What standard could that be? And what is the exceptional nature of a man and woman relationship to which you are referring?
“Tell us, why stop there? For that matter, why not allow the union between different age groups when both parties consent?”
You must have an irrational fear of crows attacking your posts because you seem to have a Strawman standing guard in each one. The age of consent issue is very different to the issue of gay marriage. It’s like saying that children should vote because gay people can. Children are not seen of as able to fully make their own judgments or take full responsibility for their own affairs. They are thus protected and forbidden from entering into adult institutions/contracts/relationships etc until they are considered mature enough to make decisions on such matters for themselves. Children are not allowed to marry not for the same reasons that gays are not allowed to marry, but because they are vulnerable, immature and are still in the process of growing into and learning about the adult world. To say that there is a connection between the issue of the age of consent and gay marriage, and that allowing gay marriage would legitimise debate over the age of consent, is to suggest that gay adults have the moral, developmental, judgemental, emotional and intellectual capacities of children. It’s a separate issue and you know it.
“No, it isnât taking away any right. Gays demand a right they never had and therefore it isnât taking something away.”
Women never had the right to vote at a certain point, and yet I’m sure they felt that something was taken away from them. I’m sure that when they compared the rhetoric of democracy with its reality, they felt the deduction inherent in the mental transition from the former to the latter quite vividly. I’m not sure how strongly gay people feel on this issue, but I’m certain that they would not see the fact that they don’t have the right as a valid argument as to why they shouldn’t have the right.
“Marriage should not be a word that defines a stable long- term gay relationship.”
Why not? For your aforementioned reasons? Forgive me, but I’m not convinced.
“It is not their word to have or use.”
Who owns the patent then? God? John Howard? News Ltd? David Hasselhoff?
Procreation’s got nothing to do with it. Marriage, by definition, means the unification of a man and a woman, contractually and/or sacramentally. Same-sex couples can mimic the dress and the customs of actual marriage all they like but what they’re effecting is not a marriage. It is, rather, an historical, cultural and moral aberration. A stunt, in fact.
Moreover, contrary to the ludicrous argument about this novelty being blocked in Australia by “white men who don’t like their wives very much,” in fact gay “marriage” is probably considered religiously and culturally offensive to most of the world’s non-white peoples. Tony Blair’s innovation is very much a whitey law. As such, it contains within it the nihilism and infantilism that are the hallmarks of the Western left.
Joe wrote:
“Marriage is symbolic of procreation” and “marriage is about procreation and forming a family”.
Cliff has stolen much of my thunder on this point, so I’ll just add that the logic of Joe’s position is that marriage should also be denied to any heterosexual couple in which the woman is past menopause. This would exclude from marriage many divorcees, widows and widowers who get to know each other and decide that they want to share the rest of their lives together.
C.L. wrote:
“Procreation’s got nothing to do with it.”
We seem to have a heresiarch on our hands! Tighten the cilice another notch, C.L.
“Tony Blair’s innovation is very much a whitey law. As such, it contains within it the nihilism and infantilism that are the hallmarks of the Western left.”
Wot, same-sex couples forming life-long contractual commitments is more nihilistic and infantile than the individuals therein working through a succession of short-term flings in the queer club scene?
[i]âMarriage is symbolic of procreation, which gays canât practice.â?[/i]
There was a cause celebre about 20 years ago here in Australia where the Catholic church refused to marry a man who was paraplegic (and according to the church unable to consumate the marriage) with an able bodied woman.
Marriage seems to be the last bastion where religion and state are still somewhat confused.
I don’t know about other religions, but as a lapsed Catholic I still know that marriage is part of the sacraments: Baptism, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, Anointing of the Sick.
Now if the Church refuses to marry a same sex couple that’s their business. I feel sorry for those gay Catholics that would like to be fully accepted in the church. But that is entirely a church matter. The state should have its own rules. When a christian say on gay marriage that it devalues the institution, or is not the way it was intended I say: Mind your own business.
A marriage in a secular sense could be the union of two people whatever their gender. The importance is the how a couple is seen under the law.
For instance, I have heard of situations where one person was not allowed to visit his same sex partner on his death bed in hospital because under the law he had no ‘legal right’ to do so as under the law he is ‘just a friend’. With no consideration tat they have been in a loving relationship for decades.
Or if a partner dies suddenly and no will is made, and the house where the same sex couple was living was in the name of the deceased, the surviving member has no right to the property and the next of kin of the deceased could kick the partner out.
Now I am no lawyer and I am not sure whether these stories are apocryphal or not. But they show that under the law if two people of the same gender want to become a couple they should have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. It’s simply unjust.
I would have thought nihilism and infantilism were, if not mutually exclusive, then certainly not usually found together. Surely the whole point about nihilists is that they _don’t_ adhere to ready-made, one-size-fits-all belief systems in which all responsibility for decision-making is literal-mindedly offloaded onto an an omnipotent father/dictator/goddess/whatever.
Some of my best friends (heh) are Christians. But they’re tolerant, generous, intelligent Christians who (a) think for themselves within the confines of their faith, (b) don’t foist it on the rest of us, and (c) practise what they preach.
I think arguments about issues like queer civil unions / “gay marriage” are really good political barometers of the underlying currents in society. It’s really depressing that even on a progressive blog like LP, there is very little enthusiasm for either civil union or “gay marriage”.
Even for people who don’t believe in universal enfranchisement of human rights, what ever happened to the useful rule of thumb “if it doesn’t limit my freedom, then it’s cool and i don’t mind”.
What do the opponents of these changes fear? Queer affection in public? (DISCLAIMER: it already happens) Queer conversion of heterosexual children? (DISCLAIMER: Queers are not “converted”) The moral breakdown of our society? (DISCLAIMER: Cronulla riots! Hello?!)
I really think this is a generation gap issue. I would hazard a guess that the majority of people born after 1970 support queer civil unions and that this support generally cuts across party lines.
P.s. What is a Judeo-christian? Back to Theology 101 please Prime Minister.
Just on Cliff’s point, we don’t really have an establishment clause, just a clause saying there will be no religious tests for holding office under the Commonwealth. I don’t know if there’s been much jurisprudence on this section, and I’m not sure if it would be stretched as far as being equivalent to an establishment clause by the court. It’s hard to see how you could even test the law – as you’d have to find a minister of religion or registered marriage celebrant to conduct a marriage of a same-sex couple, and prima facie, given the definition in the Marriage Act it would be invalid, and for all I know (I haven’t checked the actual legislation) expose the celebrant themselves to penalties.
The Christians you know sound like flakes, Pavlov.
Your knowledge of theology needs some development, Paul. Marriage is not defined as marriage because of the institution’s procreative fruits. In Catholic theology, marriage is unitive and procreative. The impossibility of the latter through no fault of the couple doesn’t affect the validity of the marriage.
The chief utility of the marriage-means-procreation argument is that it allows gay “marriage” advocates to say: See, some couples don’t have children either. Ergo: our “marriages” are no different from heteros’.” Handy argument but it’s based on a false premise. In the first instance, a gay “marriage” is not a marriage because it doesn’t involve two people of opposite sexes.
It isn’t complex.
Close italics after “heteros.” Everything after that is straight.
I think the critical point is Howard’s insistence on introducing religious values & opinions into matters of governance – as he has demonstrated again & again his very selective acknowledgement of the separation of powers, and certainly the legally understood separation of church and state. From IR to social issues, when church leaders are critical, they are meddlesome priests or simply ignored & when endorsing Howard’s values, then of course of use – patted upon their shiny little heads.
We may not have a Bill of Rights but nor do we have a declared commonwealth of christian governance. Howard’s appeal to Judeo-christian values is not legally or politically sustainable within the context of the secular state. His confusion of marriage with civil union is either deliberate or indicative of his fumbling grasp of secular governance. Or both. & nor am i sure that he is simply importing US right wing notions – I suspect Howard is merely reflecting his own social conservatism. Home-grown & flourishing in the garden of neo-con meanness.
C.L. is right about Catholic theology – but it’s important to note that this understanding of marriage as not just about procreation is only a recent development in Catholic theology – the fruits of the 20th century aggorniomento (although actually going back further sort of to Pius XII). A Newmanite like C.L. can accept that Catholic doctrine develops over time, but then strangely he doesn’t apply the same understanding to what Naomi quite correctly describes as the changes in the institution of marriage over time. C.L. wants to argue that it’s some sort of essentialist definition, while his own theological premises demonstrate that marriage is open to changing understandings.
In any case, what’s the relevance of the Catholic perspective on marriage? No one is saying Catholics can’t hold that view. What we are saying is that in a liberal and secular society civil unions should be allowed.
There seems no other way of looking at the “anti” arguments other than a denial of equal rights in a liberal society on the grounds of religious belief. The whole point of liberal democracy is that it’s not meant to adjudicate between people’s moral and ethical conceptions, except where harm is done to others.
Which is why, I suspect, these odd “arguments” about encroachment and undermining are wheeled out to establish “harm”. Problem is they’re not arguments and they don’t make sense.
Is a devout Catholic couple less likely to enter a sacramental union because the State equally recognises a civil union between a same-sex couple?
No, the argument is really about privileging one moral code and denying others rights.
From the Australian Constitution ( http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter5.htm ):
“116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
From the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution ( http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm )
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
As you can see… the two clauses are not dissimilar. The Australian clause, in fact, goes further than the American by explicitly prohibiting the imposition of any religious observance.
‘The Christians you know sound like flakes, Pavlov.’
Uh huh.
Tolerant, generous and intelligent = flaky.
Therefore:
Intolerant, mean and stupid = whatever it is that C. L. approves of.
Oh well. It’s always good to know exactly what one is up against. Scary but bracing.
I just have to say that I love Cliff’s 2.14am post, especially the justification for not marrying dogs.
I’d go further and say why should gay couples only receive ‘civil unions’ – why can’t they be married.
Sure, I know the historical basis of marriage as only something to ensure that the upperclasspeople held onto their wealth but look at the cultural meaning of marriage: to show that you love someone and are committed to them. I have my own feelings about marriage as a whole but for people to say that others can’t marry because it isn’t the ‘normal’ way annoys me.
“Itâs hard to see how you could even test the law – as youâd have to find a minister of religion or registered marriage celebrant to conduct a marriage of a same-sex couple, and prima facie, given the definition in the Marriage Act it would be invalid, and for all I know (I havenât checked the actual legislation) expose the celebrant themselves to penalties”.
I’m not sure how the process of challenging the constitutionality of a law works, but it would seem to me unfair that the mere actuality of a law’s force and application should prevent a challenge to its legitimacy. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t it be possible for a celebrant prosecuted under the act to use their defense to challenge the constitutionality of the law under which they are being prosecuted? Seems only fair to me.
“I just have to say that I love Cliffâs 2.14am post, especially the justification for not marrying dogs.”
Thankyou… I didn’t realize it was that late. I’m surprised I was literate, let alone thinking clearly, at such an hour
“In the first instance, a gay âmarriageâ? is not a marriage because it doesnât involve two people of opposite sexes.”
I second Mark’s reply. It’s a no brainer that the CURRENT definition of marriage is restricted to a union between male and female. The question is “why should it be defined a such?”, which you haven’t really properly addressed.
Mark, I’m not sure where I dismissed Naomi’s or anybody else’s potted history of Christian marriage. I think you’re bankrupting Newman to imply civil union is an end-point in any Christian theological trajectory of doctrinal development. It isn’t and cannot be. Nor is the attempt to differentiate marriage (properly so-called) from civil unions convincing. We know, for example, that gay couples often express an interest in IVF and in adoption. This demonstrates that it’s not all about property rights and superannuation. What we’re talking about, inter alia, is gay “marriages” instituting gay “families.” All of this is incompatible with the two great monotheistic faiths. On this, most black southern Baptists are in perfect accord with the Roman curia. I can’t speak for Lambeth and the “communion” it represents.
I really meant to imply, Pavlov, that Christianity is not, and never has been, a culturally quiescent religion. It has a mission given to it by its founder and that mission is more or less one of conversion. While its true that Christian witness has been powerful when characterised by service and charity, it is untrue to imagine that real Christianity is marked by the willingness of its adherents to regard any and every aberration around them with “tolerance.” There is such a thing as the good fight. By not waging that fight and contenting themselves with the patronising regard of obervers who deign to categorise them as Christians of the good and tolerant kind, Christianity becomes insipid and its professors, yes, flakes.
Sounds like bullshit to me Currency, but then again, and speaking from far too much experience, I find it difficult to imagine why anyone might want to get married. Have a good non-pagan day Lad.
“We know, for example, that gay couples often express an interest in IVF and in adoption. This demonstrates that itâs not all about property rights and superannuation. What weâre talking about, inter alia, is gay âmarriagesâ? instituting gay âfamilies.â?”
Okay, now tell me why that is wrong.’
“All of this is incompatible with the two great monotheistic faiths.”
Last I checked marriage was not the rightful monopoly of the “two great monotheistic faiths”. Oh, and which two? Is it Judaism or Islam that you don’t consider to be great faiths?
“Christianity … has a mission … of conversion … it is untrue to imagine that real Christianity is marked by the willingness of its adherents to regard any and every aberration around them with âtolerance.â?”
So you are saying here that a ban on gay marriage is due to a Christian intolerance of “aberration” and part of a more general “mission of conversion”? What part of “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance” escapes your understanding? If you cannot justify the banning of gay marriage on any grounds other than religious ones, then there is no place for such legislation in a secular state. We are not talking about the right of your church to refuse to celebrate wedlock between homosexuals… we are talking about the State’s right to do so. And until you come up with a compelling secular argument, I’m going to continue to support a gay’s right to marry.
1) Wilfully denying even the possibility of a child having a parent of both sexes is child abuse of a very disturbed kind. Even without children, an observation once made by Paul Keating is apposite: “Two jokers and a cocker-spaniel isn’t a family.”
2) The two great montheistic faiths are Christianity and Judaism. Islam was founded by a rapist maniac.
3) Banning gay “marriage” is establishing a religion? Good luck with that in the High Court.
Legislation of the UK kind would be offensive to everyone but whitey Balmain basketweavers and has no place in a modern tolerant Australia.
Cliff, right you are. My aged memory was playing tricks on me.
C.L., please read what I actually wrote. I’m not saying that civil union would be a development of Catholic doctrine, just that there’s an analogy between the shifting understanding of marriage in Catholic thought and the shifting social institution of marriage, which Naomi explained. The analogy is that neither are fixed in time as always the same. The Howardian view falsely sees marriage as always being the same institution/practice.
Whether or not Christianity is inconsistent with gay folks raising kids, I won’t comment on, because it’s entirely irrelevant.
You need to clarify whether you’re giving us a theological history lesson, or making arguments in public policy. If the latter, religious beliefs carry no weight. You need to demonstrate that there’s a good reason why your narrow conception of family should be imposed by the state on people who don’t share it. You can’t.
As to the argument about not being brought up with a male parent being child abuse, that’s just hyperbole – and it’s offensive hyperbole to many single mums as well as gay parents. You should know that all the studies show that the kids of gay parents grow up as well adjusted if not better adjusted than those of straight parents. No doubt one of the reasons is that they’re normally the product of a very conscious choice to be parents, not just a “normal” stage in the heterosexual life course.
Lordy, C.L., I was wondering how you were going to deal with the fact that most Muslims would agree with you. But I see you’ve found a solution in vitriolic abuse.
The only shift in the social institution of marriage is amongst those who oppose the traditional institution as laid out in our Constitution for their own means. The truth is that you would want to deinstitutionalise marriage, so a ‘social institution’ based on change to an accepted traditional institution is no institution at all.
Are you saying that traditions have to be shifted to suit a minority at the expense of the majority who still view marriage as a worthwhile institution, and want their children to have the same understanding of what a marriage as they currently do, that is, a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, which has been defined in Australian courts as well as now being in the Constitution? The tradition of marriage is as valid as it ever was, and should not be tampered with. Why not find another term to describe same sex unions, like ‘civil unions’!
The PM’s reference to Judeo-Christian values is relevant as the basis of Westminster law as well as Australian law, since the values inherant in both these great faiths have been adopted and adapted to our legal system.
On this issue of marriage Islam would be equally opposed to same sex marriages.
However, I don’t see any opposition in this thread to the concept of ‘civil unions’, although it would appear to be something of a sham, since most States recognised the rights of same sex couples in regard to wills, insurances, etc.
“Legislation of the UK kind would be offensive to everyone but whitey Balmain basketweavers and has no place in a modern tolerant Australia.”
Hyperbolic tosh, C.L. There’s absolutely no reason why two gay men or two lesbian women with an enduring commitment to each other should be disbarred from the societal and legal entitlement, recognition and respect that Australia offers to a man and a woman with the selfsame enduring commitment to each other and within a decade C.L, I predict we won’t be.
Personally, I’m not big on ‘marriage’ per se – the PM can rest easy – but I do like the civil union concept which you seem to find so incredibly offensive and I’m at lost to understand why.
This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Religions are free to edict as they choose. Whatever our history, for the majority of Australians, the intricacies of faith and dogma are an ongoing irrelevance. We are a secular society and it’s the civil case for legal recognition that’s at issue here.
I’m the father of a 19 year old daughter whose mother is a lesbian. She is a profoundly well-adjusted, happy, successful and secure heterosexual uni student whose childhood was everything a happy childhood should be: loved, protected, nurtured and encouraged. About as far removed from “child abuse” as could be imagined. She grew up – as many kids do – surrounded by a large extended family of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc. Families don’t exist in a vacuum and, shocking as it may seem C.L., they’re also the place where homosexuals actually come from.
Merry Xmas.
The straight-up hate of homosexuals exhibited here by CL, amongst others, is sad and frightening.
Are you afraid they’re going to sneak into your bed at night and bugger you?
Or are you afraid you’d enjoy it?
“Wilfully denying even the possibility of a child having a parent of both sexes is child abuse of a very disturbed kind.”
The only real abuse such a child could experience as a result of the sexuality of their parents is abuse arising from other people’s prejudices against homosexuality. If, for example, a child was told that his/her parents were going to hell because they love each other… that could be distressing for the poor child.
“Banning gay âmarriageâ? is establishing a religion? Good luck with that in the High Court.”
If the ban is justified on religious grounds… it could be interpreted as imposing religious observance. I’m no constitutional expert… so I’m not on sure ground of course. Section 51 grants the commonwealth power to make laws with respect to marriage… so I’m not sure what relationship that has to the establishment clause… nor if its ever been tested. Probably a long shot I know.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn17.htm – Paper on the the marriage clause in section 51. There is not a definition in the constitution, so there has been a debate over what scope the Government has to define marriage itself.
“a âsocial institutionâ based on change to an accepted traditional institution is no institution at all.”
Societies, cultures, and traditions change, and institutions change along with them. Whether or not this will happen in Australia with regard to same-sex marriage, I don’t know. But attempting to reify a particular interpretation of marriage won’t help you if the winds do change.
“Are you saying that traditions have to be shifted to suit a minority at the expense of the majority who still view marriage as a worthwhile institution”
You’re assuming that gay marriage can only be allowed at the expense of heterosexual marriage, and that marriage is only worthwhile if it excludes homosexuals… please explain. Are homosexuals so filthy and vile that their being married would debase the institution of marriage? If so, why are homosexuals as such? Why are they lesser people? Why is their bond not good enough for marriage?
“The PMâs reference to Judeo-Christian values is relevant as the basis of Westminster law as well as Australian law, since the values inherant in both these great faiths have been adopted and adapted to our legal system.”
I don’t know why you mentioned Westminster there because Westminster just happened to allow gay unions… hence the renewed debate. Ergo, even if there are judeo-christian roots to our law… we are not inflexibly bound to religious principle, nor should we.
Don’t be hysterical, Bill. By the way, I note again the phenomenon I identified earlier in the week: when liberals really want to insult an alleged “homophobe,” they invariably imply he’s homosexual. It’s an insult, after all! Turns out Bill hates homosexuals.
Merry Christmas to you Geoff. As I always do when you and I have inter-thread discussions on such matters, I stand by my assertion respectfully. Namely, wilfully conceiving or adopting a child with no intention for that child to ever have a parent of each sex is abusive. That remains true, however masculine and loveable dear old Uncle Fred happens to be. The existence of positive and affirming arrangements that people have developed to cope with unexpected births or relationship dissolutions does not vitiate this argument.
Mark, last time I looked the Howard government hadn’t banned civil unions between heterosexuals. Men and women can still be lawfully married on the beach by a state priestess to the strains of Wuthering Heights if that’s what they want. Not sure what you mean by him being committed to a changeless idea of marriage.
Bill Posters
“The straight-up hate of homosexuals exhibited here by CL, amongst others, is sad and frightening.
Are you afraid they’re going to sneak into your bed at night and bugger you?
Or are you afraid you’d enjoy it”?
That’s right Bill, use the intolerance scam to demonstrate how intolerant we are. It never came to mind to you that the 2% or less of the population categorized as gay are making a demand for accommodation that quite frankly flies in the face of or heritage. To you it simply comes down to the crude, base remarks that whitey is a hateful prick that hates homosexuals because he is afraid of being buggered.
Not one single thought conveyed that we have a traditional vow shared by two people of the opposite sex that ought to be maintained in its traditional form and should not be invaded by a boisterous minority looking, in fact, demanding recognition. Those who don’t share the same view are both frightened and intolerant at the same time. Does the irony of this escape completely? We are now scared while being Right wing death beasts at the same time?
Please! Is this the best you offer when trying to dismantle one of the key elements of European traditional culture. This not an argument, it is rank nonsense.
Cliff
“the two clauses are not dissimilar. The Australian clause, in fact, goes further than the American by explicitly prohibiting the imposition of any religious observance”.
If we read the history of the American Establishment clause you will understand clearly why it was inserted in the first place. It was to ensure the Government did not, like in England favor the Established Church of England.
Howard’s remarks have nothing to do with religion and all to do with understanding that our heritage derives from European culture and traditions, which are based on Judeo-Christian concepts. Sure it certainly derives from religion but most important facets of our traditional culture do anyway. So what’s your point? That if any element of our culture has Judeo-Christian traditions they could be challenged under the Estab. clause? See hoe far you could take that in front of a set intelligent, impartial judges?
our heritage derives from European culture and traditions, which are based on Judeo-Christian concepts
Speak for yourself chum. I’ll see your ‘heritage’ and raise you one, for the Celts and the Celtic traditions were all over Europe way, way, way before this johnny-come-lately Judeo-Christian mythology was dreamed up. In the name of our much older and more authentic Indigenous traditions, down with Judeo-Christian oppression!
“I stand by my assertion respectfully. Namely, wilfully conceiving or adopting a child with no intention for that child to ever have a parent of each sex is abusive.”
It’s fine for you to stand by your assertions. But generally in a debate we don’t simply stand by our assertions, we justify them. I noticed you mentioned “interthread discussion” so maybe you have provided a justification previously… but I haven’t seen it.
“It never came to mind to you that the 2% or less of the population categorized as gay are making a demand for accommodation that quite frankly flies in the face of or heritage … Not one single thought conveyed that we have a traditional vow shared by two people of the opposite sex that ought to be maintained in its traditional form and should not be invaded by a boisterous minority looking, in fact, demanding recognition.”
If they are such a minority then why should their being able to marry each other be such a problem? And why does their status as a minority trivialize their concerns as “boisterous”. Why are their demands for recognition so offensive?
Tradition should not be accepted simply because they are traditions. You still have to provide a compelling argument as to why it is a tradition that must be observed. Thus far the best you seem to have done is to 1) state that marriage is essentially about procreation, (which it isn’t) and 2) it will cause a “domino effect”, leading to the legalization of inter-species and paedophiliac marriages (which it won’t)…. before I can agree with you on the whole “key elements of European … culture” thing… you have to argue why it is a key element, rather than just making a shopping list of assertions.
“Our heritage derives from European culture and traditions, which are based on Judeo-Christian concepts. Sure it certainly derives from religion but most important facets of our traditional culture do anyway. So what’s your point? That if any element of our culture has Judeo-Christian traditions they could be challenged under the Estab. clause?”
The fact that elements of our culture are genetically religious is not necessarily sufficient to make them an unlawful establishment, even if they are propogated by the state. The fact is that such inheritances have been secularised… in that even though they have a religious origin, their continued existence is justified with reference to their immanent, this-worldly, or rational, utility… in other words, they are for all intensive purposes, secular. Concepts such as just war, capitalism, human rights etc may have originated in Christianity, but they no longer rely on Christianity for their acceptance. Thus far, I haven’t heard a single rational argument against gay marriage… and it seems all to easy for proponents of the ban (CL in particular) to fall back on the religious justification. Prove me wrong, I’m waiting.
Time for a Ranty resurrection.
The Myth of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Cs
There is no excuse for an obviously intelligent person like you denying such basic concepts of history. Ignorance is not what I would accuse you of, so I simply cannot say why you are such denial. That’s a matter for you and your god to debate. Important people such HG Wells and others easily demonstrate the central role the Roman Catholic Church had in creating the West. And it is from here the central tenets of Judeo- Christian culture came about.
Lets go through a quick history of the West.
1. Western Roman Empire’s old classic civilization is destroyed by the Barbarians hordes. 5th century
2. The only piece of this Empire that survives is the Catholic Church.
3. It takes several hundred years for these Northern Germanic people to become Christian.
It was the co- mingling of the Germanic cultures with Christianity that is called the West. And what is Christianity, if not the combination of the Jewish culture, tradition and religion with the new order bought by Jesus in combination with the points above. It was Christianity that was able to civilize the Germanic groups.
The concept of the individual comes straight from the Jewish tradition of explaining the importance of the individual under God’s law and those made by man.
Is there something here I missed CS, or would you say it is the correct interpretation of Western culture as it is. Maybe I missed something?
Of course every major group in Europe introduced something to this soup. But this is how I understand it.
C.L., different states have different attitudes to legal rights for same sex couples. Shamefully Federal legislation is decades behind the times – and some important stuff, like super and pensions, are in the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction. And the only legally recognised ceremonies permitted by the Commonwealth are marriage ceremonies – whether in Church or by a civil celebrant. Yes, same sex couples can have private ceremonies to celebrate their commitment, but these afford no legal rights and carry no legal or social recognition as does marriage. Same was true in the UK – hence the idea of civil unions. It’s distressing that you’re so dogmatic on a topic without even knowing the facts.
“our heritage derives from European culture and traditions”
Have you checked what European countries now recognise same sex marriage or unions?
Time now for a little more ‘European derivation’.
I frankly couldn’t give a stuff what CL and the rest of the religious sycophants and bigots have to say on the subject of Gay Marriage.
I think knowingly bringing a child into the world, then programming them with a mythological doctrine that teaches discrimination, is far more damaging, and therefore is clearly a form of abuse.
Ron
History deals with the past. The present is dealt with in news papers and journals.
“2% or less of the population categorized as gay”
Once again that is a figure found mainly on religious websites. The generally accepted figure has now been reduced from the Kinsey one of 10% to between 3% and 6%.
It’s interesting when I Google homosexual questions, an almost overwhelming number of answers thrown up relate to religious sites. But change your question to poverty or similar things and religion bows out. Just what is the fascination with homosexuality by religions, their leaders and adherents?
And two questions never get answered in threads like this:
(1) How in blazes does legalisation of same-sex marriages, or unions or whatever, have any affect on heteosexualy marriages. (Considering the 50% divorce rate hetero marriage is already in serious trouble.)
(2) If you’re not gay, why is homosexality any of your business?
I would be interested to know if homophobes are also racists as both traits are related to the fear of differences.
Mark
“…same sex couples can have private ceremonies to celebrate their commitment, but these afford no legal rights and carry no legal or social recognition as does marriage’…”
What is so important for same sex couples to gain this recognition they so desire? Current laws protecting communal property between non-married cohabitating couples carries over to gays.
If there are any issues that don’t offer protection by legislated laws they can make arrangements through private treaty. Isn’t simply better just being in the open about this issue. It’s not legal recognition they want. It is total and complete acceptance their lifestyle is a norm and should be not only accepted by demanded.
What’s interesting about this whole issue is that the left, not too long ago, felt marriage was a “social construct” and leftist feminists were dead set against the old fashioned vow. As it was told to us many and many times, it was white man’s way of subjugating women.
What the bloody hell’s happened here. The left has found God only in same sex marriage?
And seeing there has been silence from other commentators can I ask you, why not allow multiple marriage partners if people so wish.
David H
you sure must have suffered.
What’s wrong with acceptance, Joe? Yes, I’d like to see civil unions to give the same recognition socially and legally to same sex couples as hetero couples enjoy through marriage.
As to multiple marriage partners, in every culture that has a tradition of polygamy, there are also abuses such as weddings of children, and it’s always the man who has multiple wives. It appears to be consistently a practice which degrades and oppresses women. That’s why many Islamic women are opposed to it – and there’s a movement in Islam for family law which entrenches monogamy and makes divorce (by the male) harder.
But it’s a furphy, Joe, and you know it. There is no cultural tradition or demand for the sanctioning of such arrangements in this country. There is for monogamous unions between same sex couples.
Of course it was a furhy and I made no attempt to disguise it. However Mormons may not see it the way you do. They also regard mulitple marriage as an acceptable lifesytle choice that ought to be recognized.
To be honest, wasn’t thinking of the Islamic isue at all.
I can’t see those advocating same sex marriage could be intellectually opposed to multiple.
If anything, Joe, there’s more likelihood of an equal partnership between two people of the same sex than of the opposite sex. That’s why a lot of people aren’t keen on marriage per se at all.
Anyway, I’m off to drink some white wine now!
In my comments on this topic, I have generally criticised religious site for their biased view of homosexual issues.
Here is a quote from a Christian site which does not follow this trend:
“Marriage is not a Christian institution. Marriage existed before Christianity and has existed in most of the world’s cultures and religions. For three quarters of Christian history, the Church did not even conduct the marriage rites of most of its members. Marriage was regarded as a civil matter, legally transacted outside of the church according to the norms of the society, and the Church simply blessed, prayed for, and supported the marriages of its members. It is therefore fundamentally wrong to assert that marriage is a Christian institution and that Christian interpretations of marriage should therefore be privileged in civil law over other interpretations. [My emphasis.]
John Mark Ministries is here.
Joe C: History deals with the past. The present is dealt with in news papers and journals.
What is your point, Joe? That we have a European History, but that it’s irrelevant that actual Europeans have found a way of moving forward from that very same history?
“They also regard mulitple marriage as an acceptable lifesytle choice that ought to be recognized.”
They don’t. The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints dropped polygamy as a tenet of faith a century ago. Find another strawman, Joe.
Joe C said
David H
you sure must have suffered.
What’s that supposed to mean Mr Sockpuppet?
You can dress it up anyway you like Joe, but the fact remains that if you don’t support gay marriage, then don’t have a gay marriage.
Anna
For all intents Europe is dead men walking in its present form. There is no future for Europe and it is dying in every way. Demographically, economically, influentially…..politically.
Europe today is not moving formard. It once respresented something important.
It’s the saddest thing. There is nothing, nothing to learn from Europe anymore and the only wares it has for sale are bad.
Hence, why I talk of the historical Europe. The centre of European culture was France and I am unsure whether it doesn’t fall into abyss in the next 25 years.
Geoff
Utah the centre of the Mormon Church had to drop it for political reasons as it was the only way it could join the union as a state. It wasn’t because the residents of Utah suddenly found it was no longer accpetable to wed mulitple partners.
Some now are joinging the me too band wagan.
Fact: Same sex de facto relationships DO NOT have the same legal status as regards property, inheritance, medical power of attorney as married OR civil union (heterosexual) couples.
Fact: Same sex couples DO NOT have a codified postion as regards any children that may be born within the relationship.
Fact: Same sex couples DO NOT have access to each other’s superannuation, within the context of one of the couple dying, NOR can they apply for release of their own super if their partner is incurring expenses due to chronic illness or death of their partner. The regulatory authority does not consider such persons to be family & therefore are excluded by the act.
A lot of this also applies to de facto hetero couples as well, but in most cases a favourable ruling is made.
The reality is that the Australian state actively discriminates against a number of its citizens in terms of excluding them from legal rights available to any other citizen.
Personally, I couldnt give a tinker’s curse as to whether the churches except or deny the emotional validity of any loving relationship that falls within or without of its doctrinal gambit, but I do find it very disturbing that anyone can defend a state that actively pursues legalistic discriminations against its own citizens.
As the Tasmanian legisaltion shows, the notion of civil union is not about gender, religion or biological relationship but intentional relationships which may or may not encompass the narrower church-based notion of marriage.
Living in a notional democratic state, I fully expect to be able to vote for persons likely to draft and vote upon legislation that determines the secular values of my society, not religious leaders of faiths who carry more baggage than the QEII. Faiths that are being manipulated by political leaders for their own aggrandisement.
My partner and I have a child, but have not married. We know what we are to each other, and we are not religious. It would serve no purpose to us.
My sister and her partner have been together 20 years, and have also not felt it necessary to have a religious ceremony to recognise this. This is fortunate, as they are lesbian parents of a son and daughter. One child from a known donor involved in the child’s life, and the second from an anonymous Danish donor.
It staggers me that this family known so intimately to me can be characterised as “abusers” by CL because their second child’s donor father is unknown.
They really are exceptional parents, much better than I. Partly because it took a long time of talking and thinking before they decided to have kids, and also because my sister’s girlfriend is adopted which added another layer of understanding and nuance to the identity ramifications of seeking a donor child.
I’m amazed that the fact that my boyfriend knocked me up after we’d been going out for a few months and we’ve managed to make a go of it somehow gives us a get-outta-being-called-an-abuser-unless-we-actually-are-one card.
CL, you don’t seem to be a stupid or cruel man.
But you really should get out more.
Beautifully put, Bernice.
Thanks.
David:
What was it that you liked surely it must have been the amusingling ironic point towards the end:
Living in a notional democratic state, I fully expect to be able to vote for persons…..”
Or was it something I missed.
Noami:
Don’t undersell yourseld as a parent. And by the sound of your musing you souldn’t.
joe says,:
There is no excuse for an obviously intelligent person like you denying such basic concepts of history… Lets go through a quick history of the West.
and then he lets fly with an entirely preposterous shorter history. Joe, sometimes it’s just too much effort to give lectures in reply. I know it’s midsummer, so I won’t say lay off the drugs. Have more. Enjoy
(And Joe, just between you and me, I think the RCC has contributed Jack Shit)
(And Kim, that picture’s far too big: it’s destroyed the site layout)
Bah. Listen to the justifications for a gay marriage ban: all of them rest on customary and religious objections to two people of the same sex having partnership with the same legal rights as two people of different sexes. Of course, this is dressed up in the stock standard arguments about ‘Judeo-Christian Civilisiation/Values/Way of Life’ – which would obviously collapse instantly into degraded Nilhilist Neo-Pagan Marxist Neitszchean Freudian Darwinian Anarchy the moment suchw as allowed. Pathetic, chaps.
How could two people of the same sex legalising a loving and caring relationship possibly bother you?
Ron,
‘Marriage existed before Christianity and has existed in most of the world’s cultures and religions.’
That’s where the Judeo part comes into it, since it predates Christianity, being based on promises going back way before even Jewish law, including the idea of marriage between a husband and his wife.
Facelift, who gives a shit?
Are we a Judaic society? No. The holy Torah has no place in our legal code. We don’t stone people for taking the Lord’s name in vain or wearing mixed cloths. Come off it fellas! If two consenting adults wish to enter into a legal partnership, why should their respective sexes matter?
Some good news on the Liberal backbench front: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17654558-421,00.html
I cannot believe Beazley is entrenching Latham’s position on gay marriage. What happened to Rainbow Labor?
Leinad,
Are we talking about mariage or civil unions. I don’t hear objections to civil unions, but we seem to have slipped up a notch, which actually highlights the point main stream religious people have, that the homosexual lobby won’t stop until marriage is secured as a beachhead.
I think many Christians have a deep suspicion of what is known as the Homosexual Manifesto, which is to be found in the American Library of Congress:
‘Homosexual Manifesto
AN ESSAY ON THE HOMOSEXUAL REVOLUTION
by Michael Swift
THIS ESSAY is outre, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of you shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep.
Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too and only man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand with depth and feeling the mind and body of another man.
All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.
All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically, and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.’
Obviously, not all homosexuals agree with this or even know about it, but there is a growing suspician that there is more to the homosexual agenda than we hear about in the media, ssince it’s not politically correct to release or criticise such manifestos. Imagine the outcry.
In the face of such a manifesto, don’t blame Christians for wanting to defend the bedrock of their society, which is marriage.
Someone mention the homosexual agenda?
If this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_Agenda is correct then the manifesto is all hot air and bluster, merely a frustrated gay man letting off stream, but where there is smoke there is fire, and I don’t hear many denials from homosexual lobbyists or representatives of its validity to a movement or warped inspirational value.
Since it must be known by homosexual leaders that the manifesto has been heavily reported amongst Christian media and produces a large amount of discomfort, particularly amongst US Christians, who clearly influence others around the world, surely a rebutal by the homosexual lobby would be pertenant if they are against its concepts. How can its lingering presence as a document genuinely help their cause?
Beach-heads? What, on H-Hour, G-Day? What is this paranoid nutjobbery?! FaceLift, the homosexual agenda (9:00 meeting @ work, 12:00 do tax return in lunchbreak, 3:00 Call Tom and ‘Candi’ re:pagan orgy in churchhall) is, and has always been, equality of status. That means the same legal recognition as individuals that everybody else benefits from. ‘Christians’ make a big howl and stink about the word ‘marriage’, as if gays getting ‘married’ will somehow violate the warranty on Christianity and God won’t give a refund. What that has to do with legal regonition of same sex partnerships I don’t understand.
Homosexuals can have a civil union and call it a marriage or whatever you damn please, this whole ‘they can’t a have a marriage because marriage is about procreation only not’ argument you and Joe C put up is word splitting-semantics in a fraudulent civil union with bullshit social history and a fundamentalist interpretation of relationships.
Classic ‘oppressed Christian’ paranoia: “OMG! Some gay guy wrote something wierd and scary to me! All gays may or may not be included in this (notice how the issue is Gay men and not lesbians? Why is this?) devious plot to destory civilisation as I know it! Obviously legal recognition of same-sex couples is the beachead to the storming of Das Heteroland!” Get a grip, FL, before you start spreading scuttlebutt. And you wonder why we don’t take this seriously…
Must it? Who are these ‘homosexual leaders’? Why would they know what some random gay guy wrote? Unless of course, the writer in question was using special GayTech(tm) encrypted software that forwarded his message to the High Council of the Elders of GLTBI for review… oh no! I’ve given away too much!
FL, US ‘Christian’ media have had it in for gays from the word ‘go’. If that guy hadn’t written a “Homosexual Manifesto’ they would’ve written their own one. With more swearing and worse spelling.
Why? Why should these ‘homosexual leaders’ have to rebut anything a gay man writes anywhere? Your entire bizarre post is predicated on gays of all stripes taking this ‘Homosexual Manifesto’ seriously, and there being some kind of General Gay Oversight Board responsible for such writings, all of which are entirely fictitious (OR ARE THEY?) and frankly pretty specious. Has anyone asked a Christian on this board to rebut Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell? No, because most of us realise that what one purported Christian says has nothing to do with the views or opinions of another and that other shouldn’t be held responsible for the opinions there expressed. If you could extend the same courtesy to homosexuals (who are a very varied and diverse bunch) then perhaps a reasonable discussion could occur.
what was the surname
of the writer of the piece?
just checking, really …
Of course every homosexual is plotting to take over the world and convert everyone to sodom. I know, because I read about it in the megalomaniac ravings of an obvious nut with delusions of grandeur…
Just like every Jew is plotting world domination because I read about it in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion…
If I had a dollar for every nut who in his most wildest fantasies had planned an insurrection to remake society in their own image, I’d have enough money to fund an insurrection to remake society in my own image. And guess what, gays would have the right to marry. Ooh! A conspiracy!
Seems that manifesto was not written as a serious piece anyway.
“In the face of such a manifesto, don’t blame Christians for wanting to defend the bedrock of their society, which is marriage.’
It’s not a manifesto. It’s a deliberately overwrought – if not manifestly ludicrous – opinion piece by some dude no-one ever heard of, published nearly 20 years ago. It was subsequently read into the Congressional Record by some nutjob theocrat in a pathetic attempt to “prove” that the dreaded homosexual takeover was nigh.
It’s about as relevant to gay reality as the wind -powered velocipede – there’s nothing to “rebut,” FL.
The piece would have long since faded into thoroughly well-merited obscurity had those who perceive “Christian” political advantage in waving it around, not continued to do so.
Oh, so you do rebutt it. Thats’ reassuring! And you clealry find it as obsessive, insulting and intrusive as most Christians do. The fact is, though, that it was written, is displayed as a manifesto, and I must say you’re the first voices I’ve heard which condemn it as a piece. I merely brought an issue to your attention, since there are equally ludicrous conspiracy theories about Christians on a few of these threads at present, ie, ID = creationism = Christian conspiracy to take over US, PM opposed to gay civil unions = Christian conspiracy, white men hate their wives, which makes them hate gays = Christian conspiracy, why stop there, why not add IR laws revised, must be the Christians, compulsery student unionism removed, blame the Christians?
Did anyone happen to see Johnny’s Christmas message?
In light of his comments about why he is opposed to gay marriage and putting the Christ in Christmas, he is really pushing the ‘Christians are the root of our being’ stuff.
FaceLift, please tell me
the surname of the writer
The penny might drop
FaceLift, if you were to get any more disingenuous you’d start weasel-wording yourself. I haven’t seen this much bald insincerity in the course of an inquistition “Who me? I was just bringing it up as a topic of out curiousity (only not)” since Rafe tried to resurrect HUAC at Troppo. (Egregious and melodramatic parts in bold)
I don’t. Whoever this Queer Valerie Solanas is they can write as many SCUM-type ramblings as they like. There’s nothing to rebutt there and you should drop the fatuous stinking red herring before you come off smelling any worse than you already do. Notice how nobody but you and the US Christian Moon Patrol have ever heard of this dangerous text? That should tell you something about the currency and credibility of this Protocol of the Elders of SanFran.
Of course, Commissar Vyshinsky, the Manifesto is perfidy and reactionism given the gross shape of letters. I am filled with shame that I let such treasonous thought pass my eyes. You and comrades Kondecensky and Patronyshnik have cut open the veil of my treachery.
Whoopee. Anyone can write a manifesto. I could write one about how Christmas really gets on my nerves and I don’t want to do the washing up. Is my household going to say “Oh geez, Leinad’s got a manifesto that says he doesn’t have to wash up, better do what it says, it’s a Manifesto!”
That’s fantastic. You’re so humble FL. Merely brought it to our attention because… rant, rant, hyperbole, strawman? That’s all I could get out of that equation you put up. Isn’t building massive sacrificial straw creations more pf a pagan thing, anyways? The topic is gay marriage in Britain and Australia, not “hey isn’t this Gay Manifesto that no-one’s heard of shocking, huh? Guys? Isn’t it?”
The only honest explanation I can find for you apparent shock and surprise (if that’s what they are) is that you must not have had any serious contact with homosexuals or mildly pro-gay rights individuals ever. You should get out more and talk to some people.
But hey, why do that when you can mutter darkly about secret homosexual beach-heads and Manifestos of Doom? I don’t think you’re surprised at all FL. You knew it was trash from the start, and you came running around here and started conspicuously brandishing it in the middle of a discussion about same-sex marriage, saying “Hey guys, look at this is, isn’t it disgusting? I am so offended! How could anyone agree with such filth, hmm? hmm?” . When no one took your highly relevant groundbreaking scoop (STOP PRESS: SOME GAY GUY RANTS!) with the appropraite degree of conspicious shock and indignation you start dragging in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that no one at LP has made (c’mon, link these horrible statements, let them face proper scrutiny), attempting to equate one off-topic irrelevancy for others.
Everyone can see through you, so drop the charades and make your points honestly (preferably with something more substantial by way of evidence).
Doesn’t change my mind at all, Zoe. You don’t strike me as stupid or cruel either, by the way.
Leinad,
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! Your’e all het up. Sorry to get you so hot under the colour just before Christmas. Read the thread from the very beginning. See the venom in the opening comments.
If you check back you’ll see I linked you to wickipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_Agenda which links to Swift’s full rant. Wickipedia seems to have heard of it and him. I also said it’s probably ‘all hot air and bluster, merely a frustrated gay man letting off steam’, but added words to the effect that the silence on it from gay supporters is, or was, deafening.
Any way look at nature, say, 200 years ago, before modern contraceptive measures, or ivf, and think of the human race:
man woman = babies = survival of human race
man man = no babies = elimination of human race
woman woman = no babies = elimination of human race
Even nature tells you the truth.
Way back when it really mattered, marriage was a clean, healthy way of keeping family structure together. Since the mid 20th century when divorce was made simple we have seen a chaotic mix of dislocated families. Now we move into the era of further confusion and dislocation, as anyone can marry anyone, male female, transgender, intergender. Seriously, what’s the point. It will be a logistical nightmare for Centrelink, anyway.
Have a nice Christmas!
Sheesh FL, pulling out that ‘manifesto’ is no different to someone on the other side of the debate pulling out some nutjob Christian fundamentalist manifesto, and it’d be about as relevant.
Look, I gave you some information which may or may not be important to this debate. Don’t shoot me down for pointing something out to you. If Christians are suspicious of gay intentions they will oppose their attempts at civil unions or marriage. Since they do carry some weight with politicians at present, I would have thought this was an important clue to the future.
This manifesto, however ridiculous, is an affront to all Christians, and it exists, and it is being used, and has been for 18 years, without denial from the gay lobby, as a debating point in the US.
It has everything to do with the concept of homosexual unions, in UK or in Australia, since US Christian influence is great, and this so called ‘rant’ manifesto, as you can see for yourselves, is being used as a defence against constructive discussions with the gay community, and the Christians didn’t have to ‘make up their own’ manifesto. It is there, bold and proud, and it’s principes could be seen, by those who think it is representative of all gay thinking, to be matched by the highly organised homosexual lobbies of every nation in the Western world.
Of course there are manifestos and countermanifestos, conspiracies and counterconspiracies, but the fact is that this is a large balloon obscuring the horizon. Call it unimportant or whatever you want, but unless the gay community can remove it from being in the face of Christians it will be touted as ‘the’ manifesto.
Again, I repeat, I don’t see any objections to civil unions on this thread. But at present you’d be hard pressed to push things any further.
“If Christians are …”
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Most people nominally Christian just inherited the thing. They supermarket the bits they can live with, do whatever they want, think whatever they want, and remain nominally Christian because they couldn’t be bothered shifting to another system of hocus pocus, even though they basically think that all religions are just about the same, which means equally dubious. The trouble with religion in the world today is that all the sane people don’t give a shit, which means the loonies have got the microphones, and the bombs, and seriously presume to be able to make patently idiotic statements like “If Christians are …”
‘The trouble with religion…’
Oh, (pauses, holding head in hands) for goodness sake! Isn’t this about hearing the cries of the minority? Who cares if a person is nominally or devoutly Christian, they are basically supportive of marriage as is, and don’t see the need to change it. The people with the microphones are generally more passionate about what they believe that’s all. Hocus pocus is witchcraft, so Christians avoid it, except perhaps the Harry Potter books, which can be quite funny. Religions are not the same, but the hugest, vastest majority agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. The sane people own the microphones, the mixer and the sound system. They also own the auditoriums, the TV channels, stations and satellites. They have a strong influence on national leaders. The loonies don’t listen to what they have to say, and say fruitloop things like, “The trouble with religion…”
Dearie, dearie, me – you should all have been doing what my flatmate Michael and I have been doing and have gone to Midnight Mass rather than posting comments on blogs! A happy and holy Xmas to all!
Btw – Elizajoey – what’s with Howard having a Christmas message at all? Yet another usurpation of the vice-regal role!
The “Homosexual Manifesto” is and was an ironic response to, and parody and sendup of the fundamentalist religious Reich, and as such has the currency and value of “the Protocols of the Elders of Zion”; the latter of course being a major document in feeding European anti-semitism from the Middle Ages onward. Unless one follows the homophobe “literature”, most gays would be unaware of the former. However the “Manifesto” is used to inflame anti-gay prejudice.
Thanks Doug — to all but the most literal-minded this was obviously parody and pisstake, but it’s good to know the details. I think for those among us with an irony meter, it’s almost impossible to understand the world view of those born without one — simple, nay enviable, as such a world view must be.
And now from my catatonic Boxing Day reading:
‘I listened to the man rant about Satan and heathens and Jews, and felt tiny hairs rise on the back of my neck. I resent those who see themselves as God’s spokesmen and next of kin, and am disturbed by people intepreting the Gospel to push a political agenda.’
– Kathy Reichs, *Death du Jour*.
Happy New Year to all.
To give us something more to criticise. After all, making mean comments about the choirboys in the Queen’s message this year just wasn’t good enough for me.
I also thought it was important to mention also that whilst FaceLift etc seems to speak for all Christians, there are many Christians, in fact, even ‘official’ denominations that are not against homosexuality or the ability for homosexuals to marry so please don’t try and both degrade or speak for an entire religion. Sure, that may be your interpretation of it but that does not mean it is the entire Christian interpretation of it.
Oooo Pavlov’s Cat – I love me some Kathy Reichs – have you heard about the new show in the US called Bones that is based upon Tempe and Kathy’s life?
Elizajoey,
‘‘I also thought it was important to mention also that whilst FaceLift etc seems to speak for all Christians, there are many Christians, in fact, even ‘official’ denominations that are not against homosexuality or the ability for homosexuals to marry so please don’t try and both degrade or speak for an entire religion.’
Woah there! Who says or claims that FaceLift or any other etc on this noble commentary speaks for all Christians? Never said or implied anything of the sort. For the record, FaceLift speaks only for FaceLift, is fallible and subject to correction, stoush or derision. I can’t, however speak for ‘etc’.
On ther other hand, the Bible does speak for Christians of all denominations and movements. If you spend some time reading it you’ll see what it says about marriage.
Can you name a single Australian denomination which seeks to, or is lobbying to marry homosexuals? Maybe there are pockets of supporters, but in the very extreme minority. The Uniting Church is completely split over the homosexuals in ministry issue, but allows ‘gay’ ministers wherever the local presbytery decides to do so, which I believe is extremely rare, and a small handfull of liberal Anglicans are pro-’gay’ ministers, but this is on the issue of ministry, not homosexual marriage. I suggest that close to zero Pentecostals, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Baptist, Renewal, Lutheran, Dutch Reform, or any other orthodox or ‘official’ movement have any such plans.
However there is a growing groundswell of Christian leadership support for secular civil unions, which will help homosexuals solve their crisis of identity regarding life long partnerships, albeit not in ceremonies conducted in churches.
Published by Kim on 22 December 2005 at 10:15 pm in Politics, Culture, Sociology.
Cultural conservatives are mostly interested in conserving community as the basis of “humane civilization”. Community is a system of communication and co-operation. This implies valuing social integration over “partial differentiation”.
Cultural conservatives will therefore tend to subordinate libertarianism and egalitarianism to communitarianism. Before we can have a free and fair society we must have a society.
They judge new ideas and policies by how well they fit into the complex and long-standing existing set up. Not just whether they are good or bad in the abstract. They also distrust radical change because of the law of unintended consequences that plagues any one who decides to do serious tinkering with complex systems. And they are wary of rapid change, which reduces the chances of learning throught error and minimises the possibility of damage control.
They certainly want to conserve the amount of love in the world. The Christian religion, the moral backbone of cultural conservativism, has mostly preached love above all other things. This feeling is badly withered or wasted in post-modern quarters and badly needs conservation. But making over institutional structures may not be the best way to conserve individual feelings.
Stove put this arugment very well in his classic defence of conservatism. He pointed out that it stands to reason and statistical probability that most long standing practices are good and most novel ones are bad.
Now gay marriage sounds like a fair and reasonable idea in the abstract. There is even an argument, put strongly by Andrew Sullivan, that gay marriage will integrate homosexuals into the general community. Banning gay marriage may have had the effect of entrenching a homosexual cultural ghetto. Perhaps he is right.
But it is quite possible, following Stove’s argument, that gay marriage will throw a spanner into the general marital works. It is another example of that “cultural constructivism” that has plagued our educated classes in post-modern times. Recent experience does not fill me with confidence that homosexual reformers are any more on top of the social complexities that they feign to master than the feminists, multiculturalists, republicans etc many of whose “experiments in living” have ended in tears.
Cultural conservatives want to keep society together through historical time as well as accross social space. This means working out how to conserve inter-generational social structures.
Family structures are the molecular basis of society, so tampering with the bonding structures is fraught with risk. It is not obvious that issueless gay marriage will do much to conserve future generations.
There is also some chance that this drastic innovation into an ancient institution will delegitimate straight marriage. Many conservative straight people think that sanctifying homosexual marriage within a church makes a mockery of traditional marriage.
The situation has the potential to degenerate into uncontrollable farce. For intance, in the gay profession of vows which partner takes the part of the “wife” and which the “husband”? And will B&D weddings be all the rage amongst the S&M set?
Perhaps we should certify gay marriages but maintain the ban on gay weddings. That would satisfy the gay legalists whilst not offending the straight moralists.
This question is not proven one way or another. The onus of proof should be on the homosexualists to show that their favoured policy will do more good than harm. More research is needed. The practice should be tested in a few local jurisdictions over a lengthy period of time before being given the “all clear”.
Damn it – we’ve been sprung – of course there is a gay conspiracy to take over the entire planet – go to http://www.canitpossiblybetrue.com (Copyright Time-Warner/FoxTV) – there it all is in the House Cleaning Tips of the Elders of Queerdom. (available as a handy PFD – just dandy for that little Be Alert magnet to pin to the polished stainless steel of your frig door)
First we get you suckers to let us marry – then we leave present lists at all the major department stores, design outlets – you know the sort of tasteful upmarket trend-setting spots you’d expect we thin neat persons of strange perversions to frequent. In just a few weeks of gay abandon in the marriage market, the nation’s economy will grind to a halt. Billions of honest folks’ cash will have been sucked into the maw of tasteful excess.
A black economy in tupperware will emerge but to no avail – with our newly acquired material wealth we will soon have prada clad QWAT teams roaming the suburbs house to house taking any object deemed worthy of queer wedding present status. We’ll leave you the Fantastic Furniture catalog so you can re-furnish at a level consummate with your aesthetic evolution.
And after we’ve done a bit of wardrobe refurbishment in Bob Brown’s life, we’ll install him as lifelong El Presidente, perpetually flanked by a troupe of toned young men in sheer nett koala suits.
The national anthem will be changed to “Falling in Love Again”, terry towelling will be banned, and the displaying of nationalistic, racist, sexist, homophobic material will be banned. Oh it already is – funny – it doesn’t seem to be working…..
Damn! We’ve been outed! And I thought only the naked feminist knitting circle was in the public domain!
As to your comments, Jack Strocchi, all I can say is that as usual you’re pontificating from some abstruse level of generalisation which completely ignores the fact that we’re talking about people’s lives. And their human rights.
Oh rot, Jack. We’re not talking about marriage in a church. As far as I’m aware, there are no moves afoot in Australia in any mainstream denomination to solemnise same-sex marriages. In the Episcopalian Church in one province in Canada, commitment ceremonies have been authorised (which can now be equated with civil unions). “Conservative straight people” can and have had the argument within their own church. You’ve claimed that there’s some sort of threat here, and said that we have to take care (while admitting that Andrew Sullivan might be right) – but provided nothing whatever to demonstrate what it might be. Conservative straight people in the South 40 years ago were “offended” by black people using the same loos or lunching in the same diner. They got over it, or if they didn’t, the law should protect rights equally not defer to the sensibilities of bigots.
What century are you living in, Jack? What’s this with vows? “Love, honour and obey”? Most straight marriages now have vows (often written by those getting married) which recognise marriage as an equal institution. Why should one partner have to take the part of the “wife” or “husband”? Unless you assume there’s some differentiation in roles, there’s no problem.
I liked Jack’s post. Disagreed, but found it interesting to think why I disagreed.
Basically, I think Jack/Strove is/are right when it comes to tv sets, and cd players, and dvds, and computers, and phones and electricity, and water, but i’m digressing. Shit matters, and you have to filter for first water. That this is true proves nothing about the rest of Jack’s rave, but I’ll pay that bit.
Kim,
‘Why should one partner have to take the part of the âwifeâ? or âhusbandâ?? ‘
So of course! If you eliminate gender as part of our politically correct world, there is no need to define husband or wife, any more than my wife, who prefers to be know as ‘Mrs’,can do anything about the letters titled ‘Ms’ which comes from politically corrected departments, despite the fact that she continues to want to be known as ‘Mrs’, and enjoys the role of being a wife and mother as well as continuing a successful career.
Of course, ‘Ms’ covers both ‘Miss’ and ‘Mrs’, as well as the obscure ‘Ms’, but since it is known that she is married to Mr, and likes to be known as ‘Mrs’, what can be the difficulty in adding the ‘s’ when requested? She is thus rendered gender-compliant to suit the aims of, who?
Obviously taking the gender out of the way means we would only have ‘persons’, who are no longer defined as male or female, especially since we have gender-changed humans, who are technically, and to some extent physically, both male and female, and there’s every posibility that any of the combinations will want to marry, should gender be undefined.
Why not go the whole way and simply have ‘M’, which covers ‘Mr’, ‘Mrs’, ‘Miss’, ‘Mate’, ‘Mutant’, ‘Manipulated’, ‘Manufactured’.
Let’s take ‘his’ and ‘hers’ out of the equation, and we’ll have no objection to the rest of the coup, which includes Mr being married to Mr, and Ms to Ms under the guise of M. “I now pronounce you M. and M. Chocky!”
Um, have a nice cup of tea and a lie down, FaceLift, that’s a massive over-reaction. What I meant was that there was no need for men’s role in marriage to be defined as in authority over women. I’m not suggesting there are no difference between genders. I do suggest that if marriage or any form of enduring commitment is seen as a partnership of equals, it ought not to matter whether the partners are of the same or the opposite gender.
The point of ‘Ms’, Facelift, has nothing to do with gender compliance and everything to do with equal status.
Every adult male is simply ‘Mr’, but the use of separate honorifics for married and unmarried women is a signal that the most important thing about women (unlike men) in this society is whether they’re married or not — an instant, formal signal that the woman is ‘avaliable’ or ‘not available’, with its implications of passivity and property.
I think it’s very sweet that Mrs Facelift is proud of having snagged a hubby, and I resepct her right to use Mrs as much as she thinks is appropriate, but being called Ms can’t possibly piss her off as much as being called either Miss or Mrs (both wrongly, as I am neither a virgin nor still using my former husband’s name) pisses me off, and I bet the latter happens a lot more often. To all women out there who are halfway through a medical degree or PhD: keep struggling along with it. It’s worth having just to be able to answer ‘Doctor’ when some clown asks you ‘Miss or Mrs?’, and to see the look on his face.
Al the same, I sometimes think that feminism made a strategic blue in trying to take something away instead of trying to add something on. We should have left Miss and Mrs alone, and insisted instead that blokes all be called ‘Master’ until they were married. Would you have enjoyed that, Facelift?
What man doesn’t want to be called master?
There you go then. We should start a campaign.
I now see three typos in my 9.21 am post and have made a New Year’s resolution to go to the optometrist very soon.
Happy holidays everybody
Facelift:
On ther other hand, the Bible does speak for Christians of all denominations and movements. If you spend some time reading it youâll see what it says about marriage.
Also:
Thatâs where the Judeo part comes into it, since it predates Christianity, being based on promises going back way before even Jewish law, including the idea of marriage between a husband and his wife.
Wife? Try wives. Abraham had.. how many? Moses had two. David had 18! Israel himself, for whom the Israelites and their country are named, had.. how many? Four!
These aren’t wacko fringe-dwellers in the biblical story either. These are people who are central to the plot.
So… what exactly is it that the bible says again?
Jack Strocchi:
The situation has the potential to degenerate into uncontrollable farce. For intance, in the gay profession of vows which partner takes the part of the âwifeâ? and which the âhusbandâ??
I refer you to the Marriage act of 1961, section 45:
What part of that requires that there be only one husband and one wife?
zhasper,
If you read the bible carefully in most stories of men with multiple wives/concubines encounter dreadful problems.
The original statement in Genesis states wife.
Jesus stated wife.
It takes an incredibly stupid person to have more than one wife.
Homer, having problems doesn’t mean that their marriages were any less sanctioned by the law. I seem to recall reading a Bible in which just about everybody, married and unmarried gets the worst and most horrible problems imaginable.
I’d be interested to hear an argument against civil same-sex unions that didn’t depend crucially on any of these three things:
- traditionalism (but marriages have always been male/female)
- religion (but it says in the Bible)
- total confusion of the issues (but polygamy, but child marriage, but dowries, but arranged marriages, but bestiality, but alien abduction, etc.).
I don’t think there is one.
BBEP: ‘It takes an incredibly stupid person to have more than one wife.’
The Bible says that Solomon was a particularly wise man who had lots of wives, BBEP, so one of you has got to be wrong.
Of course, the original Judeo-Christian instruction on marriage is, “A man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife!” I like the cleaving bit.
Cleaving too much and having multiple wives turned out to be Solomon’s, and ultimately Israel’s, downfall, which reveals tat even the wise can have blinkered eyes when it comes to lerv!
PC,
you are salivating.
He was wise and then lost it because of his 600 wives and 300 concubines who drove him from God.
Only Man/woman can cleave and become one person.
Who’s EO Homer? Sounds like a donkey.
liam,
‘I’d be interested to hear an argument against civil same-sex unions that didn’t depend crucially on any of these three things:
- traditionalism (but marriages have always been male/female)
- religion (but it says in the Bible)
- total confusion of the issues (but polygamy, but child marriage, but dowries, but arranged marriages, but bestiality, but alien abduction, etc.).’
If you read through carefully, I don’t think you’ll find an argument against the concept of civil unions on this thread, only same-sex marriage.
That is, apart from the PM, who is against civil unions for unspecified reasons. He does point out that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others and adds that this a Judeo-Christian principle which he obviously admires.
Tradition and religion are raised in regard to the original question asked by Kim, and relate to the PM’s referrence to Judeo-Christian principles.
Kim’s post:
…
FaceLift:
Can someone explain to me why this thread took 141 comments then?
Anna,
Thread opener:
‘I really believe that it is about the conservative view that fun, or happiness, is in and of itself a bad thing. Like divorce – why would you want to ban divorce unless you believe that âlife is painâ? (in the words of a very wise pirate).
This is mostly white men who donât like their wives very much, and theyâll be damned if anyone else is going to be happy.
(double expletive aimed at above)’
So you tried to prove that conservatives do believe in fun by taking over 100 comments to argue against something that Kim didn’t say?!?!
I don’t have to prove that conservatives believe in fun. If I did I’d do in one comment: “Conservatives believe in fun!”
Others also think conservatives are a heap of fun: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/12/27/are-we-pissed-with-uncle-sam/#comment-44772
I think conservatives are heaps funny.
Marriage is a contract to sanctify and legitimate the issue of children. It is an institution designed to lawfully organise the propagation of the next generation. Society needs children to prolong itself, at least until we can work out a way to merge our minds with machines.
Marriage is not just a relationship legitmator. Otherwise, why don’t we just let any old couple get married – business associates, drinking mates, golf partners?
When a gay couple manage to find a way to issue children through their intercourse then I will be happy to cheer when the minister pronounces them “man and wife” or whatever. Until then I remain skeptical of the idea, although warmly supportive of the rights and interests of gay people everywhere.
Where does love fit into your equation, Jack?
Gays want to marry because of LOVE for one another. One does not love business associates or drinking mates in the sense of wanting to marry them.
In your world disabled people or older men and women, past child-bearing age, should not marry?
“Marriage is a contract to sanctify and legitimate the issue of children.”
In part, Jack but the rights, entitlements and obligations of marriage are not voided in the absence of children and many thousands of married Australians don’t have them. Many, indeed, marry with no intention/ability to have them. According to the SMH this morning, thousands of Australians enter marriages for the sole purpose of ensuring permanent residency.
I see absolutely no logical reason why my primary life relationship should be viewed any differently in law to that of, say, Bob Hawke and Blanche d’Alpuguet.
Contrary to Anna’s quibbles about the direction of this thread, it is clear that many in the homosexual community would like more than civil unions to mark their devotion and love. Here Geoff appears to be contending for marriage, which is his right (contending, I mean). My question to Geoff is, supposing the PM relents, or a change of leadership allows civil unions, would the homosexual community be satisfied, or do you think they will press for the ultimate goal of same sex marriage?
So now it’s the slippery slope. We can’t give them something I have no problems with them having, because then they might start asking for even more.
And why not go the whole way down the slippery slope? Marriage is not purely a religious institution, it’s a civil institution. In the longer term, I see no reason why it should not be available to all citizens as a matter of equity, should they choose. I’d like to hear an argument against same-sex marriage that doesn’t involve the three points Liam mentioned.
Anna, it’s far more honest to ask for the ‘more’ first, rather than advance by degrees to a specified aim, then we know where we stand in the first place.
However there is a significant difference for marriage traditionalists between civil unions and marriage itself.
The only difference is whether the Church plays a role or not. The Church is still free to refuse to marry same-sex couples. If gay couples want to fight for a religious marriage, they will need to do it within the Church.
Why should it matter that some gay people want to do that? What has it to do with a secular government? Why should they share their “intentions” with you? Even if they did tell you that they plan to fight for that in the future, it has no bearing on their right to the first demand.
liam’s list has only 2 relevant points: (i) tradition, (ii) religion.
Since the original argumant was against the PM’s assertion that marriage has its roots in Judeo-Christian principals, both tradition and religion are relevant to this thread.
Condensed liam: ‘remove all arguments valid to this thread so we can have a different argument’.
Liam’s not saying they’re irrelevant to the thread – he’s saying they’re irrelevant to whether or not a right should be respected.
100 years ago it was going against tradition to grant women the vote. It had nothing to do with whether it was right to prevent women from voting.
You still have to go further and explain why that tradition should continue, why it’s a good tradition. You haven’t done that – the procreation thing is out, since we already allow infertile couples to marry, the Bible thing is out because we don’t live in a theocracy, so you have only tradition left.
So now you have to convince us that this particular tradition is one worth keeping. Tell us why it’s good to continue to prevent people who are in love from having that relationship acknowledged and treated as seriously as other in-love couples.
No, Conservative Fun. The point is to argue it out in all aspects. I suggest that in a liberal society institutions ought to be ordered around the principles of equity and access for all citizens regardless of their private beliefs. As Anna says, no one is compelling people to believe in anything or churches (or other faiths for that matter) to do anything. It’s a simple matter of according basic human rights to all. The only argument against that ought to be an argument that greater harm would result, and that’s what can’t be made out.
I don’t think you’re looking at it from the right perspective. You’re asking people who agree with the present constitutional definiton of marriage to prove to you why it shouldn’t be changeed. I think it is more pertenant for you to demonstrate why it should be changed.
The whole point of a liberal, secular democratic society is that it should extend rights, privileges and responsibilities equally to all.
That’s the underlying principle of our government. There is nothing in the constitution about marriage except a provision giving the Federal Parliament power to legislate to regulate it. What you’re talking about is some amendments made to the Marriage Act last year. I would suggest that these are incompatible with the democratic values underlying our system, and therefore I think it is on those who would deny rights to others that the onus rests.
Having said that, I doubt that you’re going to give me an argument that doesn’t smuggle in your own religious beliefs into the equation. I’m just interested in whether anyone can come up with one. I very much doubt that anyone can.
That’s the key point, I think.
The thing is, though, that the definition and institution of marriage has already, over considerable time, been argued, by brighter minds than ours presumably, both in the courts and in parliament: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn17.htm.
You speak as if no considration has been given to what we know as marriage. Only two western nations have same sex marriage, Spain and the Netherlands. The rest have compromised the issue and allow civil unions. The compromise option seems the most logical future course for Australia.
All your link shows is that there have been a number of inconsistent obiter dicta by High Court justices over a long period of time – some which would suggest that the Parliament could define the scope of marital unions, and some which would not. As the research note points out, there has been little litigation on this section, and one cannot be sure. I fail to see your point. And I’m still waiting for an argument against same sex marriage which is responsive to the arguments about the fundamental equality of citizens in a liberal society and their right to choose their own expression of the good life.
Surely the difference between the words marriage and civil unions is one of semantics. Do not couples joined by a civil registrar consider themselves to have been, and be, married?
The word marriage is not a proprietry one owned by religious organisations.
Javid Stroverocchi:
[Cultural conservatives] also distrust radical change because of the law of unintended consequences that plagues any one who decides to do serious tinkering with complex systems. And they are wary of rapid change, which reduces the chances of learning throught error and minimises the possibility of damage control.
Judged by that criterion, Wise King Otto’s performance in the last session of parliament was a complete disaster for cultural conservatism. Workchoices, the Anti-Terrorism Bill and welfare “reform” all pushed through with a minimum of parliamentary debate and hence little, if any, examination of the possible unintended consequences of tinkering with the existing arrangements for industrial relations, civil rights or welfare provision. And no appeals to communitarian values either: Workchoices was and is justified on the basis of economic efficiency, the various infringements on individual rights in the anti-Terrorism Bill on the basis of “national security” (and every Australian’s sacred duty to be shit scared of being killed by Islamic terrorists) and welfare reform – just the usual tax-paying middle class spite against dole bludgers, single mothers and disability pension skivers.
And while this government pursues a politically reactionary agenda that imposes increasing levels of authoritarian control over the majority of its citizens, what are the cultural conservatives up to? Defending the status quo against the serious threat posed by the extension of majority rights to minorities. With the help of dumb analogies using TV sets. Like cs, I’ll give Stove the point on the efficacy of kicking a TV set; taking to it with a 10 pound sledge makes even less sense.
Gummo Trotsky on 29 December 2005 at 2:47 pm
Cultural conservatism is a philosophy of civic “systems management”, developed to maintain the security of the state and the solidarity of society under conditions of extensive, intensive and rapid change. As such it is useful and worthy for the egalitarian socialist Left and the proprietarian capitalist Right alike.
It is not an ideology, it is just an intellectual way of communicating common sense and decency to political animals. It is neither the grand narrative of a political movement nor the talking points for a particular party, although there are many who treat it as such.
I opposed Howardâs AT (Muslim bashing) and IR (union bashing) laws, if Gummo Trotsky bothered to look. Jack Strocchi on 29 October 2005 at 11:01 am
The same principle applies to the Anti-Terror laws. Jack Strocchi on 26 October 2005 at 12:40 am
If Muslims or unions break the law there are, under existing laws, plenty of powers and police available to punish them without setting up a police state apparatus. The homegrown Islamist terrorist plots were foiled using existing powers.
The Cronulla riots were provoked because political correctors prevented the police from imposing existing laws on marauding ethnic gangstas. Fortunately this situation has now been corrected.
Gummo Trotsky says:
Donât blame me, I didnât vote for him. I correctly predicted the Howard governmentâs return with an increased majority, and the correspondent Decline of the Wets.
But I voted against Howard. This is because I knew that Howard would exploit legitimate community grievances against the constructivist Cultural Wets in order to advance the agenda of the regressive Economic Dries. I have copped every kind of abuse and vicious misrepresentation for being vindicated.
It is typical of Cultural Wets to shoot the messenger. I suppose I should be cross at Gummo Trotskyâs âoversightâ?. But if I lost it every time my disputants showed stupidity or spite then I would be doing little else.
Mark,
My fundamental argument is that I agree with the present definition of marriage, which is that it is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for change to this.
You seek to remove the arguments of tradition and religion, which are generally the basis on which cultural issues rest, simply because they are strong arguments. Saying you disagree doesnât remove their potency for the Australia we live in today.
Whilst procreation and ordered family structure aren’t the only reasons for couples marrying, they are extremely important to the majority of couples contemplating marriage, and cannot be that easily dismissed as a valid reason for marriage on the basis that some couples do not marry for children.
Couples who remarry at a later age often have children from previous marriages, or from a pre-marital relationship. Again ordered family structure is part of their motive for marriage. Couples who cannot have children often do not discover this until after they have married. The fact of their union puts them in position to apply for ivf or to adopt.
For the majority of marriages, you cannot dismiss tradition as a motive and driving force, since cultural issues ensue for almost all marriages. In the vast majority of cultures same sex marriage is not considered acceptable (as a marriage structure). Living in a secular democracy doesn’t dismiss cultural issues. Rather it protects them.
Within cultural standards there are generally religious issues involved. Again you cannot dismiss these considerations even in a secular democracy. Also contained within cultural issues are considerations of sexuality. Same sex unions are not an option either culturally or religiously for most people. You canât just dismiss these as valid reasons and say, âfind another because we donât agree with themâ?.
Democracies chose government through a majority voting system based on policies produced by competing parties. It is up to lobbyists and parties to produce a valid reason for change to the present definition. If they can convince the nation that they have a mandate for change then things will be different.
Itâs futile saying we have to dismiss traditional or religious reasons for maintaining marriage as it is, since in a debate both these forces will produce strong opposition to any change.
Ron,
Civil unions are different to marriage simply because they have no basis in either tradition or religion. Signing a form and conducting a ceremony which declares a couple to be in a union would give them similar rights to married couples with regard to wills, insurance, property, etc, but would not qualify them for adoption or ivf treatment (in the case of lesbian relationships). I’m not sure how such things as annulment would work, or primary custody of children in the case of same sex couples with children from previopus relationships, but presumably that would go to the direct kin. I expect contracts would be drawn up to facilitate these eventualities.
In NT de facto couples are regarded as in a ‘marriage-like’ relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual, with all the rights that entails (apart from adoption, I believe), so frankly, I wonder what the point of a ‘marriage’ ceremony would be, since they technically have the same benefits anyway.
FaceLift, you are still not addressing the question of why all these perfectly valid points should be forced onto other people who do not share the view.
You’ve provided no arguments about the benefit to society of not allowing gay people to marry, except that lots of people don’t want it for various traditional/ religious reasons. That’s not good enough – you need more than that to stop people from doing something that doesn’t affect your life, or your marriage.
Conservative Fun, I agree with Anna, and I’d also point out we live in a liberal democratic society. The world “liberal” implies two things which qualify “democracy” – respects for the rights of minorities, and state neutrality as between competing ethical positions (providing they do no harm to others), thus disallowing the state from treating citizens differently or discriminating against their beliefs even if a majority wanted to.
You could see the point, I’m sure, if there was a majority for stoning adulterers.
Extending marriage to everyone does not devalue whatever beliefs you have about marriage (which are probably the majority position), but enables minorities to have their beliefs about the value of their own relationships recognised publicly (which you don’t get just with extension of various financial aspects of partnership).
Facelift,
I don’t believe we are discussing de facto couples when we talk about civil unions – CU’s are marriages conducted by licensed celebrants.
Did you know that the marriage certificate issued by ministers of religion is not a legal document for recognition of marriage for passports and other things? The only document that is accepted is a marriage certificate from state births, deaths and marriage departments which are issued to all married couples regardless of whether they had a religious or civil marriage.
In conjunction with Anna’s last comment, I ask the same question I did way up above:
“How in blazes does legalisation of same-sex marriages, or unions or whatever, have any affect on heteosexual marriages. (Considering the 50% divorce rate hetero marriage is already in serious trouble.)”
Somehow I can’t stop thinking about all the “businessmen” who must have complained about the future of their enterprises when abolition of slavery was mooted.
What we are talking about here is the abolition of discrimination against a minority which will have NO detrimental affect on anyone who will not be a beneficiary of the legalisation of gay marriage (no semantics this time).
Surely the difference between the words marriage and civil unions is one of semantics
I would say yes Ron but civil union involves imagining two men discussing the relative merits of superannuation schemes, which is safely outside the realms of moral turpitude. Marriage involves rooting, which is not.
When I used to work in the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages we’d encounter much confusion from people about the issue Ron raises – not every minister of religion, pastor, priest, rabbi, imam or whatever is a licenced marriage celebrant. Only those licensed by the state. The only legally recognised form of marriage is that sanctioned by the state – and marriages (or civil unions if you prefer) conducted by registered celebrants have exactly the same status as those conducted by Archbishop Jensen or Cardinal Pell. Which is as it should be, and why there’s no good reason to deny the secularity of the logic of marriage as a right to be extended to all citizens!
Mark/Anna,
Well, then that is what you will have to lobby and argue with the party of your choice, my dears.
I notice at the beginning of this thread that there were grumbles about whether the Labor party had the bottle to push for those kind of policies. Well, in a liberal democracy it is up to you to put your case, not to moan behind the scenes.
I don’t think anyone’s views should be ‘forced on’ another person, but the fact is that you can’t please everyone in a democracy. I don’t like a whole lot of things our ‘liberal’ society ‘forces’ on me. I hate the fact that so many people are hooked on gambling and families suffer while government coffers overflow, that prostitution is so readily available, denigrating the prostitutes, the users and their families, that banks can charge exorbitant fees for next to no work, that smoking is legal and kills people at the same time it provides revenue for our governments. Don’t fight me over these things. They’re just my pet problems with ‘liberal’ democracy. There are many things you don’t like about our society which you can only change by lobbying government.
______________________
Actually I made this point earlier on, which has nothing to do with tradition or religion:
‘man woman = babies = survival of human race
man man = no babies = elimination of human race
woman woman = no babies = elimination of human race
Even nature tells you the truth.’
So now we come back to one of my first points. Why would anyone think that allowing gay marriage would encourage it if they are happy in their own marriage? Is the only thing stopping you from marrying some guy the fact that it’s illegal?
‘man man = no babies = elimination of human race’
That might be a point if same-sex marriage was compulsory after it’s introduction, but otherwise it’s just completely stupid. It’s so stupid it’s dressed itself up in a stupid costume and is singing Stupid Days Are Here Again
“man man = no babies = elimination of human race
woman woman = no babies = elimination of human race”
That would have to be the most ridiculous thing written in this whole thread because of its assumption.
And you forget, ALL homosexuals are the product of
man woman = babies
Yes, yes, but what does nature tell you!
Nature doesn’t tell us anything about marriage.
What does nature tell you?
Sod all, when it comes down to it. Acquaint yourself with some of the scientific studies of reproductive behaviour in other species and you’ll find a wide range of reproductive strategies – various forms of pack/flock/herd behaviour where only alpha males and alpha females breed, that thing that female praying mantises and spiders do and randy critters like the mallard drake which will jump anything that looks rootable – juvenile mallard drakes, the family cat, Sherrin footballs, you name it.
And since when do social policies and social arrangements have to find their justifications in “nature”. Doesn’t leave religion with much standing does it? Apart from mantises, how many insects pray? Fish are obviously not equipped for it (can’t kneel). How much spirituality do you reckon an aadvarck has?
Haven’t you heard of the AardvArck of the Covenant, or Noah’s AardvArck?
Homer has a rival!
I must say this thread has sparked more discussion than I anticipated – which is all to the good. If it shows any signs of expiry, I shall announce my forthcoming nuptials with Missy here to give it a kick along!
Gays and lesbians getting married won’t cause the collapse of civilisation, but lipsnigers?
Indeed! Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to prohibit lipsnigeramy?
An expose of who exactly has the hidden agenda in these debates as played out in the States has just been posted here.
man woman = babies only if they choose to have them = will the human race survive?!
Anna Winter on 29 December 2005 at 1:44 pm
Individual love, considered in the abstract, sounds fine as the basis for marriage. But if one wants to generalise that sentiment one could wind up in dangerous seas.
What if a person fell in love with one of her parents, or several of her grand-parents. Would that love automaticly guarantee them the right of marriage to the other part(ies)?
Polygamy and various forms of incest are certainly social relationships that could be grounded in love. Even bestiality could be, according to Peter Singer.
The point behind these far-fetched example is that institutional authority should have the power to contrain individual autonomy, if it is considered in the public interest. There is a strong public interest in sanctifying and legitimating child production corporations ie male-female marriages.
Until we have the technological capacity to regenerate persons through in silico or in vitro treatments we should be concentrating on improving traditional in vivo methods we should be wary about handing marriage licences out to Tom, Dick and Harry.
I suspect that most gays just want gay marriage legitimated not because they want to get married but because conservatives dont want them to get married.
In time, however, a democratic republic came to occupy a large portion of the earth’s surface, and made itself felt as one of the most powerful members of the community of nations; and elective and responsible government became subject to the observations and criticisms which wait upon a great existing fact. It was now perceived that such phrases as “self-government,” and “the power of the people over themselves,” do not express the true state of the case. The “people” who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised; and the “self-government” spoken of is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power. The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein. This view of things, recommending itself equally to the intelligence of thinkers and to the inclination of those important classes in European society to whose real or supposed interests democracy is adverse, has had no difficulty in establishing itself; and in political speculations “the tyranny of the majority” is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.
J S Mill On Liberty, Part I: http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html
Ampersand on why the slope won’t slip.
Gummo Trotsky on 31 December 2005 at 4:13 pm
If Gummo Trotsky has any philosophical advice that can trump Mill on the age old democratic connundrum of how to reconcile majority rule with minority rights then we would all be delighted if he could share it with us.
But readers would be well advised to take such pearls of wisdom with a grain of salt, seeing as how Gummo Trotsky made a complete balls-up in a recent attempt at shedding light on this topic operating at a low degree of difficulty. I had no trouble of making mincemeat of it here.
Marriage is a contract to sanctify and legitimate the issue of children. It is an institution designed to lawfully organise the propagation of the next generation. Society needs children to prolong itself, at least until we can work out a way to merge our minds with machines.
There is a strong public interest in sanctifying and legitimating child production corporations ie male-female marriages.
Too true – the alternatives are pretty grim:
DUD: What was the word?
…
PETE: ‘Bastard.’
DUD: What’s that mean Pete?
PETE: Well he wouldn’t tell me. I knew it was filthy but I didn’t know how to use it. So he said the only place I could see it was down at the Town Hall in the enormous dictionary they have there – an enormous one with a whole volume to each letter. You can only get in with a medical certificate. So I wend down there and sneaked in, you know, very secretively, and went up and took down from the shelf this enormous great dusty ‘B’ and opened it out and there was the word in all its horror – ‘BASTARD’.
DUD: What was the definition, Pete?
PETE: It said ‘BASTARD – Child born out of wedlock.’
DUD: Urgh! What’s a wedlock Pete?
PETE: A wedlock, Dud, is a horrible thing. It’s a mixture of a steam engine and a padlock and some children are born out of them instead of through the normal channels and it’s another of the filthiest words in the world.
(Cook, P & Moore, D The Dagenham Dialogues, London 1971)
OK, so the comments I’ve posted in this thread so far were composed in moments of irritation and impatience with Jack’s pertinacity and his increasingly sophistical arguments against gay marriage, culminating with this nasty little ad-hominem strawman:
I suspect that most gays just want gay marriage legitimated not because they want to get married but because conservatives dont want them to get married.
Now Jack, you ask how that excerpt from Mill’s On Liberty might be relevant Well Mill was writing largely about the problem of majorities that seek to actively oppress, or tyrannise minorities and impose their moral standards upon them; it’s pretty obvious what his position would, or ought to have been, on acts of parliament outlawing homosexual behaviour. One problem Mill doesn’t treat, explicitly, is that of majorities withholding rights from minorities, in effect converting those rights into privileges. Privileges which are widely held, but privileges nonetheless.
Plenty of commenters in this thread have pointed to significant areas of life where the social status quo discriminates against gay people – particularly in the issue of who is deemed next of kin for inheritance of estates or situations of medical crisis. Marriage as a civil contract extends beyond the legitimation of children to confer on the wedded parties specific rights in these matters. It’s pretty obvious that gays might resonably consider the fact that they can’t obtain these civil benefits of marriage, discriminatory.
One of the justifications you offered for the status quo Jack, was that in this case libertarianism and egalitarianism had to be put aside in favour of communitarian values. Well maybe; but it’s clear that in this case you’re working with a notion of communitarianism which defines the community, very specifically, in terms of who it excludes.
Finally, there are at least three positions people might take on the issue of gay civil unions: resolutely against it, indifferent, and for it. With various shadings of indifferent. I suspect that what we are seeing here isn’t a straightforward instance of a Millian tyranny of the majority; more a tyranny of the politically influential defenders of traditional marriage, while the indifferent, many of whom might actually regard the idea as completely benign, concern themselves with more immediately pressing issues. That’s the usual story on a lot of political issues, especially those which lend themselves to wedge politics.
When it comes down to it, your cultural conservatism, however you define it, is an easy hostage for any already established moralistic or authoritarian minority which threatens social discord unless everybody lives the lives they want them to lead. With new minorities the direct opposite applies as you’ve made abundantly clear in this thread and in your frequent entries into the discussion on multi-culturalism.
Oh, and before you belabour us “wets” for spite and stupidity again, you should take a long hard look at your reply to my Mill comment. Not a hell of a lot of goodwill there, old son.
Gummo,
‘a tyranny of the politically influential defenders of traditional marriage’
No, ‘tyranny’ is the wrong word. In a democracy we vote for a party which most closely meets our ideals, or we lobby them to adopt our ideals, or we enter parliament to push for our ideals. That is not tyranny. Tyranny comes from hardline, despotic leadership which refuses to hear anyone but themselves, and, beside this, silences, intimidates or removes any opposing force.
The very point of marriage being traditional gives it a strength, purpose and even expectancy for those who enter into it which cannot be easily moved. Having a traditional base doesn’t make it tyrannical, it just means that it has developed culturally over time, and through experience into a specific accepted norm. Often traditions such as marriage are considered the ‘finished article’ not to be tampered with, and I put it to you that that is the very strength of marriage. People know what to expect, and embark on marriage relationships with an understanding what it means to them. It is an importent covenant, developed over ages.
Traditions like this are very difficult to remove, change or even advance. But this does not make them tyrannically controlled or manipulated obstacles. The very introduction of radical change into established cultural patterns can throw them into what would be considered an unnacceptable dissarray, and render them unrecognisable to those who embrace them.
Defending marriage as a cultural tradition is not tyrannical. It is a normal reaction from those who prize it and encourage it for their succeeding generations. It is part of the cultural successsion which brings continuity to a community. This mums and dads teaching their children well. This is ‘mothers and fathers’ played out by kids for generations. This is how cultural identity survives and is replenished.
Gummo Trotsky on 1 January 2006 at 3:13 pm
I am not heart and soul against gay marriage. It probably won’t do much harm and perhaps may do a little good here and there. I really don’t care all that much about it.
There is no doubt that cultural conservatism has a bias to wards âestablished moralisticâ¦authoritarian[s]â?. This is because, throughout 99% of recorded history, most states have been ruled by moralistic establishments, through institutional authorities. Cultural conservatism has an in built bias towards respecting traditional authority. So it is logical for cultural conservatives to be more sympathetic to traditional authority over fashionable autonomies.
I doubt whether the opposition to gay marriage, or any of the other forms of cultural constructivism that still seem to be spluttering and burning around here, command unimpregnable majorities in Australia. The extended political office of John Howard, Australiaâs most notorious cultural conservative, gives the lie to that claim.
What does bother me is the general ignorance about the principles of cultural conservatism, as opposed to cultural constructivism. Conservatism is a philosophy of social systems management. The thing about systems is that they need stability to work properly and if they aint broke dont fix them.
I would feel more confident about condoning gay marriage if the same people in favour of it were not so strongly in favour of every other radical change one can poke a stick at, eg multiculturalism, liberalising drug laws, poltically correct policing, “womynist” feminism etc.
The notion that these reforms are on behalf of oppressed minorities is risible. The “Wets” obviously like radical constructivism for its own sake. Or because it annoys cultural conservatives, who they appear to associate with stern headmasters, nagging wives, barking sergeant majors and the like.
There was not a hell of a lot of good will or reason Gummo Trotsky’s false comments implying that one cultural conservative (Jack Strocchi) was indifferent to Howard’s radical constructivism in industrial relations and civil liberties. I made mince meat of his rubbish here.
This failed to win the humiliating back down that I felt entitled to. So I had little alternative but to infer malice and call it accordingly.
Jack Strocchi on 1 January 2006 at 11:46 pm
Corrections: here “opposition to” should read “support for”.
Jack,
I’d say that the balance sheet is about even when it comes to unrendered humiliating backdowns. As for your inference of malice in that comment you keep harking back to, as I admitted, it was composed in a moment of extreme irritation. But hey, this is the blogosphere – if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. With your compendious recall, you’ll no doubt remember who last said that here at LP and to whom.
Gummo Trotsky on 2 January 2006 at 4:21 am
I have already rendered my humiliating backdown du millenia. Nothing that has so far traspired in the Culture Wars, or my commentary on them, has given me the slightest reason to do anything else but continue my current orgy of vindictive triumphalism.
So it’s all solipsism, is it, Jack?