The Australian has run a column from the Family Council of Victoria’s Bill Muehlenberg, in response to last week’s column from Derryn Hinch. Hinch had changed his long-held position and now supported marriage equality for same-sex couples; Muehlenberg wants to tell us that Hinch “manages to mangle just about everything in the marriage debate”.
Let’s take a quick run through how many things Muehlenberg overlooks, fudges or gets just plain wrong.
[Hinch] totally misses the purposes of marriage for example. Marriage is a universal and historical institution which serves tremendous social purposes.
It regulates human sexuality, and it procures the wellbeing of any offspring from the sexual union.
Why should human sexuality be regulated so that homsexuality is taboo? Bill doesn’t offer any argument, so unless you accept the position that the gay sex is an abomination he’s lost you already and is now preaching to the choir. We’ll come back to the “wellbeing of any offspring” in a little while.
Governments have an overwhelming interest in heterosexual marriage. They have no reason to confer special rights and privileges on other types of sexual relationships.
Except for the standard democratic convention that all people will be treated equally under the law. But Bill thinks he has an answer to that:
Indeed, talk of inequality and discrimination is off base here. Those arguing for same-sex marriage are mixing apples with oranges. Everyone is entitled to the benefits of marriage as long as they meet the conditions and requirements of it.
Homosexual relationships simply do not meet the criteria, the most basic being to have one man and one woman.
Government must only recognise marriage as being between a man and a woman because marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Congratulations Bill, you’ve gone full circle and you’re not even halfway done. What else have you got?
Of course various social goods are denied to all sorts of people for various reasons. A driver who cannot meet the obligations of low insurance rates (too young, too many accidents and so on) will not be eligible to receive those benefits. That is how life operates. If anything, it is a necessary and just discrimination.
Insurance rates are determined based on relative risk. But Bill doesn’t present any evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry has any corresponding elevation in “risk” to society — again, you already have to accept his argument in order to think his argument makes sense.
Societies have always discriminated in favour of heterosexual unions and the children they produce because of the social good derived from them.
Procreation and the raising of children is an overwhelmingly important social good, and the mother-father unit cemented by marriage is an overwhelmingly superior way of ensuring the best outcomes for children.
Evidence? No.
The restrictions on marriage apply equally to everyone, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
LOLwut? So it’s okay to deny same-sex marriage because a homosexual could always marry someone of the opposite sex? In which case the distinction might be that for homosexuals, the restriction means they can’t marry the person they love. Bill doesn’t seem to think that matters.
The exact arguments used by those pushing for same-sex marriage are being used by the polyamorists.
If we legalise the former, is it not discriminatory and unjust to outlaw the latter?
No. Not that I’m personally completely opposed to the notion of recognising relationships with n > 2, but the “slippery slope” argument is false. Existing marriage law can easily accommodate any pairing of two people regardless of gender — entirely different issues would apply to extend those laws to a larger number of people.
And Hinch is quite wrong to suggest that same-sex relationships are long-lasting. Plenty of studies prove the exact opposite. A recent study of homosexual men in Amsterdam found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.
This appears to be the study Bill is referring to (it’s commonly cited on many “family values” sites). The paper notes that “the participants classify their partners as steady or casual according to their own judgement”. It seems Bill wants the reader to compare the average 18-month duration with our idea of the average time a marriage lasts for — what was that thing he said about apples and oranges earlier? If we asked all heterosexual people how long they have been with their self-defined “steady partner”, I suspect the average would be considerably lower than the marriage data. Shonky argument, Bill. Have you got anything else?
The truth is, plenty of homosexuals do not even want marriage. How many homosexuals actually avail themselves of it when it becomes legally available? Let’s go back to The Netherlands. Same-sex marriage has been legal there since 2001, yet only about four per cent of Dutch homosexuals married during the first five years of legalisation.
So that’s 4% of Dutch homosexuals who would be deprived of their desired right if they were Australian instead.
Also, same-sex marriage demands are inexorably tied up with demands for homosexual parenting rights. But 40 years of social science research has overwhelmingly demonstrated the crucial importance two biological parents play in the wellbeing of children.
Citations? No. Experts (defined as actual researchers and not “family” organisations) quoted in support of this notion? No.
And a recent Galaxy poll found that a full 86 per cent of Australians believe children should be raised by their biological parents.
Bill would appear to be referring to a poll commissioned by the Australian Family Association. According to this AFA media release [84kB PDF] submission against same-sex marriage, the precise question was, ““Ideally, wherever possible, should children be raised by their biological mother and their biological father?” That question leaves a whole lot of unstated assumptions and implications between it and any conclusions about attitudes against allowing same-sex couples to raise children, let alone same-sex marriage. Especially considering there is evidence like this Galaxy survey [235kB PDF] demonstrating majority support for marriage equality.
But try to finish with a bang, Bill:
This of course is stolen from them in same-sex households. Heterosexual marriage is society’s most profound and valuable institution. It has been the bedrock of nations from time immemorial. To radically alter the nature of marriage and family is a recipe for trouble.
Precisely what that trouble might be, Bill has barely spelled out, let alone demonstrated. But I hope he feels better for having got that rant about his personal opinions off his chest.
107 Comments
{Snip} like Muehlenberg make me so f*****g angry. You can’t even argue with them because there’s no logic to appeal to. Only bigotry. Appealing to emotions doesn’t work either, because they just don’t give a shit.
There was another anti-same sex couple screed in one of the Fairfax papers last week (I think) that I linked to, written by an employee of the catholic church.
The fundies certainly seem to be spooked by the prospect of marriage equality.
Cue Jeremy Sear insisting that anyone who objects to Gay marriage is a bigot
Tobias:
This is not the first time Muehlenberg’s intellectual bankruptcy has been exposed. The man was, of course, one of the chief authors of that “21 Reasons Why Marriage Matters” document – a thoroughly dubious document with similar spurious claims devoid of evidence or, when presented, distorted.
That document is at:
http://www.fathersonline.org/resources/21%20Reasons%20Why%20Marriage%20Matters%2030July04.pdf
Of course, if you’d like to read it with a funny NZ accent, read the almost identical version where Australia is replaced by “New Zulland” all the way through:
http://www.nzmarriage.org.nz/21-Reasons-Why-Marriage-Matters.pdf
There’s always the Yankee version (the original) at:
http://familyscholars.org/2005/01/01/why-marriage-matters-second-edition/
Of course, Billy wants Australia to have US-style anti-gay politics, right?
What is most illuminating (and that you didn’t pick up on) is that the Dutch study that Bill quotes, and you identify, is thoroughly debunked in detail here:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm
Yes, it is a study. It is from the Netherlands. It does deal with gay men. But that’s about it. It has a very selective subsection of young, gay men who are admittedly in non-committed relationships.
It is not representative of the entire gay population. At all.
Imagine if you asked all those single, young men in Australia out there sowing their wild oats about the average length of their relationships, and then applied the result to all heterosexuals, you’d get a similar result. Very short, very unstable relationships.
But that’s the sort of intellectual dishonesty that Bill Muehlenberg has perpetrated in his opinion piece. Now, he probably should have checked the Dutch study before regurgitating what the right-wing anti-gay types in the US say it says. He could claim ignorance…
… but we all know the maxim: “Don’t believe everything you read.”
In fact, when you read the screeds of anti-gay tracts regurgitated by Australian pundits like Muehlenberg and his ilk, you need to ask the questions like: What is the name of the study? When was it published? And have you actually read the study, or just been told about it?
Vague-sounding, but unintellectual arguments by fundamentalists should always be taken with a grain of salt, in my view.
Well I’ll save Jeremy the effort – anyone who objects to gay marriage is a bigot, and that includes Bill Mule-N-berg. There is no argument against it which doesn’t boil down to bigotry or discrimination.
“…homosexual parenting rights. But 40 years of social science research has overwhelmingly demonstrated the crucial importance two biological parents play in the wellbeing of children ….”
Is that so? … 30 seconds of research says otherwise.
http://www.alternet.org/sex/147565/hey_conservatives_–_gays_are_better_parents_than_you
>> It regulates human sexuality
Could anyone imagine anything more disgusting than this guy being in charge of regulating our sexuality?
Can I say it instead?
…Anyone who objects to Gay marriage is a bigot…
There we are, then.
Not that I understand why gay people would want to submit their relationship to approval by the authority of the state or the noxious pederast-defenders of the Church, any more than I understand why they would want to even become members of churches that clearly hate them like poison… or for that matter why women would want to become priests within such violently anti-female institutions as the major churches . But if they’re mad enough to want to, WTF business is it of yours, unless you’re a bigot?
Cue Iain Hall contributing nothing to the discussion. Tell us Iain – do you agree with anything Bill said?
Muehlenberg’s “arguments” against gay marriage are truly a wonder to behold. Take this for example:
Special rights? Um, Bill, if supporters of marriage equality were seeking rights that heterosexuals didn’t have, then it would be special rights. Since they are seeking the same rights as heterosexuals, the appropriate term is equal rights.
Ah, perhaps my favourite “argument” against gay marriage. “But homosexuals do have the right to get married – they just have to make sure it’s to someone of the opposite gender!” No doubt, prior to miscegenation, the Bill Muehlenberg’s of the world would have been insisting that people in mixed race relation ships weren’t discriminated against – they could get married as long as it was to a member of the same race.
Irrelevant. And as Tobias pointed out, group marriages would require a completely different legal arrangement to marriage. For gay marriage all that’s required is the removal of the mixed gender provision. Also, it seems that since this article was written for The Australian he’s had to tone down his usual level of absurd rhetoric (though not too much), as usually Bill asks why it is that if we allow homosexual marriages, we can’t disallow adult-child relationships or bestiality.
Shorter Muehlenberg: “The number of people wishing to exercise this right is small, so let’s not grant it to them at all”. Of course, Bill doesn’t tell you that even if the number of homosexuals getting married is small, the vast majority of homosexuals believe they should have the right to choose.
Epic intellectual fail Mr Muehlenberg.
Glad you posted this. I wrote a letter to the editor about this which didn’t get up. The article is such a poor excuse for argument and logic. You pretty much covered everything I went through but a bit of looking around found an outdated stat (only from wiki I think) that gay marriages make up 3.6% of marriages in Holland, not the claimed low figure of only 4% of gay people choosing to marry.
The other thing I’m wondering about is how much good discussing it here is. I’ve been reading this blog for a few months now and I do enjoy it, but I do wonder about the value of discussing it here. Has anyone replied to the letters at the Oz or directly to this Muehlenberg fella? It seems to serious to vent the fury among like minded people. Or are there some silent onlookers to these pages who would agree with the bigotted position taken by our Christianly commentator?
I think most people who read here already know you are Ian. No need to cue Jeremy.
Sammy said
Tell us Iain – do you agree with anything Bill said?
Most of it actually
The thing is as the advocates o “gay marriage” should make the case for change and sadly most of you are doing a piss-poor job of finding any reason that anyone who opposes Gay unions being called marriage to change our minds.
The reality is that ” gay marriage” is just window dressing rather than the realm issue. The real issue is that Homosexuals want social affirmation of their sexual orientation and brow-beating the heterosexual majority into allowing them to call their unions marriage will not actually achieve that.
For as long as homosexuality is inextricably linked to promiscuity and anonymous sex it will never have the respectability and acceptance that so many activists say that they want it to have.
@Iain Hall
“For as long as homosexuality is inextricably linked to promiscuity and anonymous sex it will never have the respectability and acceptance that so many activists say that they want it to have.”
This is why you’ll be called bigotted Iain. Aside from the fact that you ignore the long lasting gay relationships, evident in many public figures like Michael Kirby for example (of course it’s not limited to Kirby, many gay friends of mine aged between 30 and 50 are in life long relationships, but they are not public examples), your exclusive association of homosexuality with promescuity is absurd. Have you been out to a straight night club in the last 10 years? Try it, you’ll find that heterosexuality is equally linked to promiscuity and anonymous sex. Perhaps you just choose to ignore that.
“The real issue is that Homosexuals want social affirmation of their sexual orientation”
And why shouldn’t they? What possible reason exists that two loving adults of the same gender should not have their relationship sanctioned legally and socially? Bearing in mind of course, that none of the falsehoods and invalid logic used by Muehlenberg constitute a reason.
Opponents to marriage equality never explain why it’s good for Australian law to discriminate against Australians. Funny that.
Oh Ian, you really do live in a bubble…a tiny little talkback radio style one.
@Iain Hall.
Master of the sweeping generalisation wonders why others find his opinions bigoted? Before posting you might stop and consider a simple reversal as a test, like so:
As long as heterosexuality is linked to promiscuity, one night stands and excessive alcohol consumption, it will never truly have the respectability so many people seem to need desperately to have affirmed at every available opportunity.
Feel that describes you well? Didn’t think so.
Of course Bill and Iain forget that marriage as we know it was first created to control property and had bugger (sorry couldn’t resist) all to do with “sexuality”. Yes it had something to do with children but only in that they were property and the way of keeping property in the family or aquiring property through another marriage.
Bill fails to understand the the social good he speaks of is all to do with property rights, why once upon a time even wives were considered property.
Bill and Iain’s views of marriage are handed down from Victorian England and have sod all relevance in todays world.
And yes if you oppose gay marriage you are discriminating against a segment of the population and that makes you a bigot
“For as long as homosexuality is inextricably linked to promiscuity and anonymous sex it will never have the respectability and acceptance that so many activists say that they want it to have.”
so lets abolish Hetrosexual Marriage because Hetrosexulaity is “inextricably linked to promiscuity and anonymous sex ” too
What a silly argument
benski
I don’t ignore the long term Gay relationships at all In fact I think that what I am clearly implying here is that if such relationships were the majority of homosexual liaisons rather than a minority then the cause that you so clearly support would be getting greater support.
I said nothing about Homosexuals having a monopoly on promiscuity but there is no doubt that the Gay subculture celebrates it (promiscuity) much more than it celebrates the idea of enduring pair bonds.
Thank you for recognizing the truth I enunciated and acknowledging that the issue is social affirmation. The thing is such things are a bit like respect in general. It can be earned but demanding it unearned never works.
The thing is Bill’s argument contains neither failures in logic or falsehoods.
The Oz did manage to print some letters today pointing out the absurdities of Muehlenberg’s rant: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/protection-of-children-is-paramount/story-fn558imw-1225895290754
Bill Muehlenberg goes head-to-head against well-known gay rights activist Rodney Croome in the recently-published flip-sided book WHY vs WHY: Gay Marriage: Yes and No (Pantera Press 2010, $19.99).
WHY vs WHY is a unique series of small books tackling both sides of hot topics that confront, confuse or trouble people. (Gay Marriage and Nuclear Power are the first two books in the series.) The WHY vs WHY book presents the Gay Marriage debate in an easy-to-read, 2-books-in-1, flip-sided format which guarantees each side equal prominence & space. It’s the reader who chooses who goes first, not the publisher.
Not only do both Bill Muehlenberg and Rodney Croome present their own opposing arguments in the book, they also challenge each other’s specific arguments, sources, etc. This hard-fought debate then continues on the webpage for the book, with further rebuttals from the two authors, as well as readers’ ability to vote on Gay Marriage.
The wHY vs WHY series is part of Pantera Press’s unique push to foster debate in this rapidly changing and confusing world, covering community, social, political, environmental and other big issues… topics which for most people have no simple, easy answers. Check it out at http://www.WHYvsWHY.com
@ 12, 13, 15, 16
I agree, Iain has confirmed conclusively that he is indeed a bigot.
This is about as foolish a statement as I’ve seen made. Not only that, it demonstrates that Iain doesn’t even have a realistic perception of heterosexual marriage.
As for “make the case for change”. The case is based on equal and lawful treatment for all people. To deny that to some based on sexual orientation merely demonstrates the first point again.
Entry: Circular Reasoning
cir-cu-lar rea-son-ing
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which “this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this”; also called circular logic.
Example: ” talk of inequality and discrimination is off base here. Those arguing for same-sex marriage are mixing apples with oranges. Everyone is entitled to the benefits of marriage as long as they meet the conditions and requirements of it.
Homosexual relationships simply do not meet the criteria, the most basic being to have one man and one woman.”
Ian
Who said ignorance was bliss? The only reason homosexuality is “inexorably linked” to promiscuity and anonymous sex is because people like you go around spreading said misconceptions and treating them as fact. I don’t know any single homosexual people, there are three couples of gay men I know – all have been in committed relationships for over 3 years.
Newsflash Ian, promiscuity is not simply the prerogative of the gay man – it seems like you are painting women with the same brush here as lesbians have a reputation of being less promiscuous than heterosexual women – than the heterosexual man. THOUSANDS of heterosexual people have “anonymous sex” every weekend, which according to your logic should invalidate “traditional” marriage. Why then does their behaviour not reflect on others of their sexual orientation, but gay men who are promiscuous ruin it for the rest of the gay community?
That doesn’t make a lot of sense Ian, and to be honest it’s typical of the logical gaps I often find in arguments against gay marriage. The logical fallacies which often underpin opponents of gay marriage are indicative of the emotive reasoning which usually is usually at the core of the argument. Ultimately the issue usually boils down to:
a) some deep seeded religious affiliation,
b) some moral objection to homosexuality which is usually linked in some way to a)
c) prejudice and misconceptions about homosexual lifestyle
d) sexual insecurity
None of these issues are inherently logical, hence Bills argument rife with logical fallacies.
@Iain Hall
“The thing is Bill’s argument contains neither failures in logic or falsehoods.”
That statement needs some explanation since it has been shown by the OP how incorrect you are. To start with, his statement that marriage regulates human sexuality is simply wrong. It does nothing to regulate human sexuality (if that is even possible). Secondly he says it procures the wellbeing of offspring when of course it does nothing of the sort. There are thousands of abused and neglected children born under wedlock. Their parents’ marriage did not procure their wellbeing. So there are a couple of empirical falsehoods for you to begin with.
Beyond that, I’ll get back to you later because you’ve made a fair few more errors in your comment but I don’t have time right this minute to deal with them. Back later.
LOL!
What’s also amusing is Iain’s insistence that:
…when an overwhelming majority of Australian’s have no issue with homosexuality at all and a steadily growing majority support marriage equality.
Iain sez: “I said nothing about Homosexuals having a monopoly on promiscuity but there is no doubt that the Gay subculture celebrates it (promiscuity) much more than it celebrates the idea of enduring pair bonds.”
I’m just wondering, Iain, from where you have attained such a wonderful in depth knowledge of ‘the Gay subculture’ and what it celebrates? Is there some kind of Gay Pope whose decrees are as law to the Gay community? Do you spend a lot of time at Gay bars asking people whether they celebrate promiscuity?
@ Iain hall,
Ok take two…
“I don’t ignore the long term Gay relationships at all In fact I think that what I am clearly implying here is that if such relationships were the majority of homosexual liaisons rather than a minority then the cause that you so clearly support would be getting greater support.”
If you count every single “sexual liaison” in the hetero community over say, a one year period, you’d find it outnumbers long term hetero relationships as well. Have you seen the tv series sex and the city? One of the most popular tv shows of the last 10 years that is purely about celebrating hetero promiscuity. It doesn’t invalidate hetero marriage because it has no bearing on it whatsoever. It’s simply incorrect to suggest that gay sexuality is different from straight sexuality in this way. People, Iain, are people. It seems to me the reason behind a lack of support in the community (though I think there is greater support than you might think) because of perceived promiscuity is prejudicial rather than rational.
“I said nothing about Homosexuals having a monopoly on promiscuity but there is no doubt that the Gay subculture celebrates it (promiscuity) much more than it celebrates the idea of enduring pair bonds.”
I beg to differ. I very much disagree with you, but there’s not a lot of point arguing this one because I think either side would struggle to find evidence for or against the proposition. Even if it were true, it would have no bearing on marriage itself.
Rugby league players are known to have group sex regularly. In fact they have been known to celebrate it as a team. Should we ban them from getting married because they are celbrating promiscuity? Of course not. When a couple divorces or gets married, it makes no difference to my marriage. They are unrelated events. So the celebration of promiscuity by one sub culture has no bearing on marriage itself.
“The thing is such things are a bit like respect in general. It can be earned but demanding it unearned never works.”
Personally I work from the exact opposite. I begin by respecting everyone until they lose my respect through their actions and words. A person’s sexual preference or level of promiscuity (providing consenting adults are involved and honesty is maintained) doesn’t mean they lose my respect. Honesty is much more important.
But after all this I wonder if you are likely to change your mind given the points made here. There certainly is no logical or rational reason to exclude homosexuals from marrying, and Muehlenberg demonstrated that for us nicely. As OBlizzard remarked, these are usually value based judgements. If yours is a position based on your values rather than logic, then I don’t think there’s much point in discussing it. I respect your right to hold those values, but I won’t waste further time discussing the issue with you if that’s the source of your position. It would be rather pointless. If, however, you have some rational reasons for your position I would very much like to hear them because they themselves might be worth discussing, if you are interested.
Groupthink!
http://loonpond.blogspot.com/2010/07/bill-muenhlenberg-derryn-hinch.html
I can’t wait ’til we move on to the ordination of women!
And after that Holden, gay women!
Mmmmm, lesbians …
You mean hot girl-on-girl Bishops? NOW you’re talkin’!
(With apologies to Stephen Colbert)
Ok im really starting to wonder if the reason Ian posts here is to garner our pity….why else
would anyone flay themselves and their obvious poverty of logic so repeatedly in public?’
Is rampant shagging, in ANY community, real or imagined, any kind of basis of denying someone’s right to have a committed relationship recognized under law?
“The thing is such things are a bit like respect in general. It can be earned but demanding it unearned never works.”
A bit like expecting the assumption of innocence eh Ian?
I would suggest you’re on a slippery slope with that whole mentality Ian, except I think you’re already deep in the muck at the end of it.
I read that and my initial thought was that you were talking about Julie!
Well I DID capitalize. (And Bronnie?)
Sorry, you may be having afternoon tea.
# 21 DeanL
Dean I hate no one not even those who bat for the other team and my understanding is that Hatred is actually a prerequisite for being a bigot…
Gee seeing that I have been married for twenty odd years that is news to me (sarcasm)
Nah, that is a flawed argument because it makes the faulty assumption that apples are the same thing as oranges.
#23 OBlizzard
As I said in an earlier comment one of the big reasons that Homosexuals are perceived this way is because the subculture itself celebrates such behaviour. You just can’t claim that it is a misconception because we Heteros go around saying something when even Gay TV shows like Queer as folk say precisely that.
In my earlier comment I am simply suggesting that if Gay men want to get the social affirmation from the wider community then they will have to reconsider the celebration and advocacy of promiscuity within the Gay subculture. Such behaviour is considered base and sleazy when heteros do it (as per your counter argument) so why should you expect that homosexuals will be seen any differently in the wider community when they behave in an equivalent manner?
MY argument is anything but emotive but lets look at YOUR logic shall we?
Nah I’m a life long athiest
No I believe that when it comes to sex that every individual has the right to fornicate in private with any other consenting adult in any way that pleases them.
Why should any subculture be immune from social criticism?
Asserting something does not make it so
# 24 benski
All that other people here have done (apart from the usual ad Hominem arguments) is that they have a different set of assumptions that they start from.
Well I think that what he is suggesting is that Marriage gives a framework and context for sexuality and you are seeing the term “regulates ” in a more bureaucratic context so naturally you don’t get his argument.
Biologically it does make sense that the two individuals who create offspring will have the most invested in its success which is what he is saying in that statement,he certainly is not saying that it is the only way that that children can successfully raised just taht it is generally the best.
Sure but of those raised by their biological parents the majority are not abused and in fact do very well because they have a sound family background to build their lives on.
I look forward to it
#25 Sammy Jankis
Oh I agree that most people are fairly indifferent to homosexuality but that does not necessarily translate into any support for Gay marriage now does it?
Why not advocate for a referendum on the subject or would you be unwilling to accept the verdict of the people if they said no?
Now, now, Holden, there’s no need to assault us with such visions.
“Well I think that what he is suggesting is that Marriage gives a framework and context for sexuality”
But it doesn’t even do that Iain. To adopt a metaphor from elsewhere, Marriage is related to sexuality in the same way that biological classification is related to animals. Biological classification is something that we use for our understanding that has no effect on those classified. It’s related due to us, but it doesn’t affect the animal. Marriage has no effect on sexuality. Sexuality has something to do with marriage because we as a society presently say it does. That’s it. It’s not a natural law, it’s a human construct. It therefore needs to be logically justifiable for it to be valid. To say it regulates sexuality in a beureaucratic sense or in the sense of a framewok is just incorrect.
“Sure but of those raised by their biological parents the majority are not abused and in fact do very well because they have a sound family background to build their lives on.”
So should I interrupt you and say well, then you agree that it is a falsehood? Because it doesn’t guarantee the wellbeing of the offsping any more than homosexual parents guarantees their wellbeing will be harmed.
Anyway, I’m jumping the gun a bit, you might have more to follow my later post.
A Galaxy poll conducted in June 2009 found that 60% of those surveyed supported marriage equality, slightly ahead of the figure of 57% found in 2007. In 2004 marriage equality was supported by 38%. So you see Iain, polling indicates that the majority of Australian’s support marriage equality, and it is only reasonable to assume that support will grow in the years to come. So please, will you stop this “gays shouldn’t force their views upon the majority” schtick?
This is hilarious. Opponents of marriage equality have had to drop this line of argument since it’s gained the support of the majority of Australians – yet you persist with it.
Iain, I’d like to ask you a question. It’s a question I’ve been asking opponents of marriage equality for years, and I’m yet to get a straightforward coherent answer. Maybe you could be the first to rise to the challenge. Here it is…ready?
If homosexuals can marry, how will it impact upon Australian society and its citizens?
Iain:
Not hatred necessarily. Intolerance. But that point is mute. You are a bigot. And your next point proves it:
You just can’t seem to understand that this is exactly the point. You judge everthing from your tiny little perspective. Because your marriage is fine and dandy, every other hetero marriage is the same? Talk about naivety.
And your bigotry comes from that very small-mindedness and prejudice: I have a heterosexual marriage -> my experience is the norm -> the norm is my experience. And similarly: Some homosexuals are promiscuous -> homosexual promiscuity is the norm -> homosexuals can’t be married.
You’re completely twisted, Iain. But I don’t expect you’ll ever be able to acknowledge it or get past it.
‘Nah, that is a flawed argument because it makes the faulty assumption that apples are the same thing as oranges.’
To use your metaphor Ian…apples ARE the bloody same thing as oranges in the eyes of the law..
You attempt to distance yourself from being bigoted but have completely failed to make even the slightest convincing case that homosexuals have every good reason to expect their unions to be recognized legally…People it hurts = nobody.
If there’s such a thing as a passive aggressive bigot…you’ve just defined one in my mind.
‘homosexuals’ do not have every good reason
that should read obviously.
#26 Andos
One does not have to spend any time in Gay bars to see just what it is that the subculture celebrates, look at the way that it presents itself in the context of very public events like the Mardi Gras, the way that it presents itself in fiction, there is simply no way that you can convincingly argue that the public image of homosexuality is not all about promiscuity, about sex rather than love.
#27 benski
Do you have any facts at all to back up this claim? because I think that you are just projecting here
I have seen the show and I agree that it does to some extent celebrate promiscuity but it is very much a minority view most of the mainstream hetero fiction still celebrates the notion that enduring pair bonds are actually superior and more desirable. In fact even in “sex in the city” most of the lead characters are actually looking for “the one” and they desire stability and an enduring bond over a series of one night stands. Compare that to the story lines in say “Queer as Folk” where the majority of characters are actually looking for the transient pleasures rather than anything enduring at all.
No the point is that the perceived greater promiscuity among homosexuals is actually there and really there is no point in pretending otherwise. I have said before that I believe that consenting adults are (and should be ) free to do as they please when it comes to the sex. But that does not mean that anyone is obliged to approve of or endorse the choices that they make for some strange reason Gay activists seem to think that every aspect of their subculture not only has to be tolerated but affirmed as well.
Do you think that all aspects of the subculture should be beyond question?
I don’t have any “evidence” to hand but I’m sure that there is plenty of it out there. But my point is that support for Gay Marriage would be greater if it were apparent that a majority of homosexuals were actually living in enduring relationships which clearly they aren’t.
.
Your argument falls down because there is no equivalence between rugby players and the Gay subculture, You give us a straw man argument here.
The general consensus about respect is as I have suggested, namely it is something that is earned. Your think about “honesty” being more important seems rather like an intellectual conceit because I doubt that you would respect someone who says , with absolute honesty that they think that homosexual unions should not be called marriage.
Lets be real here, both sides of this argument are based upon personal values and subjective arguments about just what the nature of social institutions should be. There is just no way that you can legitimately claim that this matter can be decided upon logic alone. What it boils down to is the underlying assumptions that you have about each of the elements that constitute the issue.
I also respect your right to hold the position that you hold and I also respect the argument that Homosexual unions will benefit from some form of social recognition but I do not accept that the recognition has to be in the form of usurping the distinctive heterosexual institution of marriage. Advocate for some other form of recognition and you will have my support.
# 38 benski
“Well I think that what he is suggesting is that Marriage gives a framework and context for sexuality”
I think that you entirely misunderstand the reason and purpose for sexuality. It is to ensure that we as a species continue to produce our own replacements (given we are mortal) enduring pair bonds in humans have been a part of our social structure for as long as we have been a distinct species we instinctively seek a partner to create and raise our progeny and because our young take so long to reach maturity we want and need stability in those pair bonds which is why we have invented marriage.
“Sure but of those raised by their biological parents the majority are not abused and in fact do very well because they have a sound family background to build their lives on.”
Nothing “guarantee(s)” the sucessfull raising of the next generation but it is clear that some strategies are more successful than others
# 39 Sammy Jankis
60% of a rather small survey does not provide anything of substance as I said before
Is it really? Then why are you so dismissive of the idea that the question should be put to the people?
Homosexuals can marry already, as long as they meet the requirements of the marriage act.
# 40 DeanL
Iain:
I am not at all intolerant of homosexuality (see my oft repeated statement about my belief that any sex between consenting adults being fine by me ) but I do not think that the changes to the marriage act are at all necessary or beneficial to our society.
WTF? I am entirely realistic about marriage in general and my own in particular I have seen friends and acquaintances who do it well and I have seen those that do it badly so your assumption about how I view the institution is just plain wrong.
There is no bigotry simply because I don’t care if people want to have sex with members of their own gender, In fact I endorse their right to do so. I am absolutely tolerant of diverse expressions of human sexuality (except of course Kiddie fiddling) Why do you think that anyone has to endorse every change that Gay activists propose?
No I am entirely straight and as my position is entirely fair and reasonable there is no need for me to “get past it ” at all
#41 quantize
I thought that the fact that the law does not see the two things as being the same under the marriage act is the reason for all of this leftist hand wringing
The problem for lefties like you is that you just can not stand the idea that in a democracy that those who want change have to convince the majority (you know people like me ) that the changes that you advocate are a good idea. In stead of engaging with those you disagree with all you can do is vilify them, Ah but that is after all the leftist way isn’t it?
The majority don’t support same sex marriage? As on most things, Iain is wrong (or a liar):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia
Iain Hall: “The problem for lefties like you is that you just can not stand the idea that in a democracy that those who want change have to convince the majority”
Not so much of a problem, given a majority do support gay marriage now. Although no doubt it doesn’t appear that way to someone surrounded by outback Queenslanders every day.
Iain somewhere in the midst of the prejudiced mumblings @ 43
“there is no equivalence between rugby players and the Gay subculture…”
actually they are often the same thing
As a gay activist myself – who is just wanting to be able to marry his partner – I am amazed at how much insider knowledge Iain has of the wants/needs/aims of gay activists. So much of his point of view is just a projection over sex, and ignoring the love and committment portion of gay relationships.
And if you ask me, the majority of those in QAF are wanting long term relationship.. but hey, what would I know, I actually watched the program (both versions).
@Iain Hall
Ok i have to be brief again.
“Do you think that all aspects of the subculture should be beyond question?”
So long as consenting adults are involved it should make no difference. Otherwise you’ll have to ban hetero swingers from marriage. There are websites dedicated to hetero people getting together for anonymous sex. It does nothing to affect the institution of marriage or their right to it. To claim perceived promiscuity should prevent homosexuals from marrying is discriminatory, unless you are prepared to ban hetero swingers from marrying. Promiscuity is an arbitrary rule and is flawed as it is not unique to homosexuality.
“There is just no way that you can legitimately claim that this matter can be decided upon logic alone.”
Rubbish. Discrimination. My values and assumptions tell me that discriminating against a group within society is wrong. This is based on logic.
“I think that you entirely misunderstand the reason and purpose for sexuality.”
No I don’t. You’re talking about procreation, I’m talking about sexuality. Two very different things, and neither one is affected by marriage. Procreation happens outside of wedlock all over the world, marriage is not a requirement for it so to make the ability to procreate a requirement for marriage is invalid circular logic.
“I doubt that you would respect someone who says , with absolute honesty that they think that homosexual unions should not be called marriage.”
A person would have my respect up until the point that they said that and tried to justify it logically, then they would start to lose it. If they were to be honest and say my value system is thus, and explain it to my based on an unshakeable belief I’d let it go. It’s how I respect my sister who is a fundamentalist Christian. I don’t respect her view on the matter but I respect her. She’s honest with me and says I think that way because the bible tells me too. We don’t argue about it because it’s pointless. But I respect her honesty, her right to hold the view (even tho it’s an indefensible view), and we leave it alone.
PS In Queer as folk, most of the boys are also looking for the one.
Ok I think this is the last post from me.
@ Iain
Your view seems to be based entirely on the idea that promiscuity in the gay community makes them inelligible for marriage. Can you see that this is a flawed argument (and very arbitrary) given there is plenty of promiscuity in the straight community? If not why doesn’t promiscuity in the straight community rule them out from marriage? I ask because it seems an incredible act of discrimination to waive the rights of an entire community to a simple concept such as marriage based on a dislike of the consenting actions of some in that community.
And if you doubt there is huge promiscuity in the straight community, go out to a night club in whatever city you live in and hang around til 3am, watch all the straight kids go home to shag strangers for the night. Then you can look up swingers websites and matchmaker websites.
I appreciate the time you’ve taken so far but I would appreciate answers to those two questions.
Iain:
I think that you entirely misunderstand the reason and purpose for sexuality.
Huh?
what you write is purely your opinion, yet you write it as if it were fact.
The reason and purpose for individual sexuality is entirely what they want to make it.
You may consider that the primary reason for sexuality is procreation, but that’s a very limited view.
What then is the purpose for sex once a couple has had their children? Does the reason for sex evolve as people’s lives progress, or should they cease all sexual activity once they have procreated? Please enlighten us oh wise one.
What is the point of debating Ian? there’s a better question.
He’s a one-eyed ideologue, he only comes here for ‘the sport’ as he often puts it, he really is not interested in logic or debate, he only wants to advance arguments which excuse his ignorance and bigotry.
The real people worth talking to are the ‘not-so’ welded on conservatives. Ian is a lost cause.
Has he ever once admitted he was wrong about anything here? I doubt it.
You just have to love it that the openly lesbian Penny Wong rejects the the push for Gay marriage.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/wong-backs-labors-antigay-marriage-stance-20100725-10q37.html
I am just waiting for you lot to insist that she is a bigot for doing so
Errr, she’s a politician, she’s a sell out, just like Garret! Either will do ANYTHING to get re-elected.
Come on RobJ
If you lot want to insist that I am a bigot because I oppose Gay marriage (but support anyone’s right to be openly Gay and to love whom and how they please) why are you pulling your punches when it comes to Wong?
She’s a self-hating lesbian, a bigot.. I have no love for Labor or Wong..
My point was that I expect politicians to be sell-outs, to be dishonest. I’m happy to call her a bigot for her stance, why wouldn’t I be?
Iain
Do you mean comments like this?
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2010/07/25/wong-facing-marriage-backlash/28541
Plenty have come out against Wong’s stupid position.
Just like many came out against Tanya Plibersek’s position against full marriage equality.
Iain gives us another lesson in what it is to be disingenuous.
Iain says:
Here’s what the article said including quotes from Wong:
It’s obvious to anyone with a brain that Wong is stating she accepts the Labor party’s (bigoted, in my opinion) position on gay marriage.
She does not say she is anti-gay marriage at all.
Therefore, to try and claim you and Wong have similar positions on this issues is a complete and utter misrepresentation Iain – and you know it.
And, you haven’t yet acknowledged your error in claiming your position was the majority position on gay marriage.
Glad to see you’re back online Iain. I’m just wondering if you are interested in answering my questions about how your logic suggests promiscuity within sub cultures of the straight community ruling them out of marriage?
Me:
Iain:
Classic trolling behaviour. You know full well that I was asking what outcomes we could expect from homosexuals marrying each other following a change to Australia’s marriage laws. Stop avoiding the question. Give us an honest answer. Please.
benski @58
Iain hasn’t answered me from a long way back on the same point, this is because he can’t, it is a very stupid argument and he knows it. He would rather try and score silly points.
And Iain, he goes, in holding this position Penny Wong is discriminating against a section of the Australian population, and anyone who discriminates is a bigot (in my opinion). All this proves is that Homosexuals are capable of being wrong on this subject just like you. How does it feel to have Penny Wong in your corner Iain? Iain the difference between you and Penny is I suspect she is capable of change because she doesn’t have a closed mind.
Sammy I have an answer for the question
“If homosexuals can marry, how will it impact upon Australian society and its citizens?”
Answer: there would be happy contented Homosexuals enjoying the benifits of being married, how could we survive all that happieness?
# 55 RobJ
Thanks for demonstrating the sort of hatred that will lose you side this debate. If you want people to support your position then you have to try to persuade rather than trying to harass them
# 56 joni
If you can’t get an openly Gay government minister to support your position on Gay marriage what makes you think that you can get the agreement of the Australian people?
#57
DeanL
Posted July 26, 2010 at 1:22 pm | Permalink
She clearly endorses the government position that marriage is defines as being between a man and a woman, she offers no caveats that she personally holds views different to the government. So there is no doubt that she is not proposing any change in the status quo which is effectively opposing any introduction of Gay marriage by this or any subsequent Labor government.
One survey with a tiny sample done some years ago does not prove majority support.
# 58 benski
You make a straw man argument.
If i remember what was aid in this thread correctly you wanter counter my suggestion that the public image of homosexuals is tainted by the celebration of promiscuity by the subculture by saying that Heteros are just as promiscuous. Is that a fair summary of your argument?+
My argument was never that promiscuity disqualifies anyone from marriage, my argument is that homosexuals will never get the public affirmation that they crave while the subculture celebrates and promotes promiscuity. Similar behaviour certainly does occur among Heteros but it is largely disproved of as well.
My point is this is not just a simple denial of rights issue at all this is about a small and noisy minority who want to redefine an institution whose current definition enjoys majority support (definition of marriage was supported by the majority of parliament almost without exception) and endorsement precisely as it stands. You and your fellow gay marriage activists have no chance of getting this up and really with the reforms made by the current government there is no practical need for change.
Iain
what century are you living in?
Clearly you don’t get out amoungst the younger folk anymore, because if you did you would realise that the statment
“Similar behaviour certainly does occur among Heteros but it is largely disproved of as well.”
may well play well to grumpy old folks but for thos born since the 50′s the world has moved on
and
My point is this is not just a simple denial of rights issue at all this is about a small and noisy minority who want to redefine an institution whose current definition enjoys majority support ”
So why do the majority of Australians polled time and time again say they are happy for Marriage to be extended to homosexual couples. the really sad truth here is you Iain are in the minority, saddly it is a noisy minority.
Iain show us the surveys that show the population doesn’t want gay marriage?
I see what Iain did there – he moved the goal posts. Initially he was saying that none spoke out against Wong’s position, and when that was proved to be a false position he changed to say that we do not have the support of gay ministers…. well, duh! We know that – that is why the protests involve both the ALP and the coalition.
And still he ingores the reality that poll after poll shows majority support for gay marriage. It seems to be the “noisy minority” is actually those who oppose marriage equality.
Sammy
If you want a straight answer then ask an unambiguous question, its as simple as that.
In any case you ask the wrong question what you should be asking is
“What would the benefit for society be if the law were changed to allow same sex unions to be classified as marriage?”
As the ones advocating change the onus is upon your side of the argument to prove the need and the efficacy of the changes you seek. So far all that I have seen is the enunciation of your desire for change rather than any reason that it would be of value.
WTF are you on about? I don’t like Labor, I have no issues slagging them off, I don’t want their support but no doubt they wouldn’t mind my vote.
FTR – I reckon Wong is just toeing the line, not being true to her own beliefs, so fuck it, she’s worse than a bigot, she’s a self interested politician.
#
# 62 surlysimon
Last time I checked it was 2010
I may be old enough to remember the sixties but that just means that I remember that even back then the permissiveness of that time was just as overstated as the permissiveness of this time is overstated
Actually despite the belief that we live in a more permissive age most people are actually rather more conservative than you might think and there is no doubt that those who sleep around are not admired for the behaviour. If they were then Mathew Johns and his team would not have been berated for their shenanigans and various starlets that have been caught “going commando ” would not have been mocked and derided as sluts either.
It is my understanding that there has not been that there has not been that many surveys on the topic and that none of them had a very large samples. Feel free to actually cite some.
# 63surlysimon
The near unanimous vote for the marriage bill says it all really what more do you want?
# 64 joni
No Joni what I did was challenge you lot to deride an openly Gay government minister as a bigot because she is enunciating what is essentially the same position as I have been doing here.
Cite them!
# 66 RobJ
Rob I am talking about the way that you lefties try to bring about change. You all clump together in little groups where you can cheer each other on with a truly righteous chorus of the usual slogans and then you just turn nasty when anyone dares to disagree with your position.
For what it is worth I tend to agree with you that she is being expedient but of course I disagree with your claim that she is a bigot for doing so. Allowing gay marriage is not in any sense essential for the toleration and acceptance of homosexuals as a valued part of the larger community.
# Iain
“If i remember what was aid in this thread correctly you wanter counter my suggestion that the public image of homosexuals is tainted by the celebration of promiscuity by the subculture by saying that Heteros are just as promiscuous. Is that a fair summary of your argument?”
Not quite, no. Initially you introduced promiscuity to justify or explain (I’ll leave that up to you) the disrespect homosexuals endure. This suggested it has something to do with marriage. I don’t know why else you would bring it up. So my argument is that promiscuity is not exclusive to the gay community and that it is irrelevant to marriage. It is widespread in the straight community, and particularly widespread in certain sub cultures within the straight community. We do not deny promiscuous straight people the opportunity to marry their partner, yet apparently we deny the same to a gay couple because of the actions of a similar group. Yet now you tell me it isn’t your argument as to why gay people should not be allowed to marry. I’m not sure why you brought it up in the first place.
You keep telling me I make a strawman argument. If I do it is only because you have misrepresented yourself by introducing the idea that the promiscuity of some is a barrier to respect for all on a page about gay marriage. You have taken until now to state that you don’t think the two (ie promiscuity and marraige) are related. To make the point that it is absurd to not respect everyone from a certain community because of the actions of some within that community, when that is a point you have tried to make, is hardly a strawman.
So now you tell me that your point is in fact that it is not a denial of rights issue, because the majority of our parliament support the status quo. I trust I don’t need to point out the absurdity of that as an argument.
So in all I’m a little flummoxed.
I’m trying hard to see your point of view and it seems to rest on the idea that only those able to procreate should be able to marry, and no one else (yet of course we’ll let sterile couples marry). And that is because marriage is best for offspring. So the question then must be how will people who can’t procreate actually marrying undermine those who can and the lives of their offspring? I would love to understand this. This is relevant today when it wasn’t in the past because we are now enlightened enough to understand that homosexuality is not a crime. As such adult homosexual relationships should receive the same recognition as heterosexual relationships. Otherwise, we as a society still view them as inferior. Hardly an enlightened position.
PS I’m not a gay marriage activist, just an interested citizen. I read Muehlenberg’s piece and was motivated to comment here by the staggeringly poor quality of the arguments. I would fail a first year essay using that level of logic. I really don’t understand why editors of the press in Australia allow such poorly reasoned articles to be published.
@ Iain
“What would the benefit for society be if the law were changed to allow same sex unions to be classified as marriage?”
A homosexual relationship is itself a lawful union. Giving it the highest recognition our society can offer, where requested, would be a simple advancement of our society to recognise our past failings by removing one more layer of discrimination.
That itself is an incredible benefit.
Iain
And there is lots of open derision of Wong over her position. After I proved that to you you then did not want to acknowledge you were wrong, preferring to move the goalposts.
And here is a poll that shows the majority support for gay marriage.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/06/25/same-sex-marriage/
Rank intellectual cowardice Iain. There is nothing ambiguous about the question put to you. Only the truly daft or those seeking to avoid answering the question would suggest it is.
So in short, you’re saying you don’t have to argue your position until we convince you are wrong. That’s not how it works. You think gay marriage would have negative consequences for Australia – the very least you could do would be to tell us what those consequences are. It makes no sense whatsoever to sit there with your arms folded declaring ‘Gay marriage will have bad consequences for Australia but I won’t tell you what they are until you convince me that gay marriage is a good thing’.
Really? You honestly believe that the case for gay marriage thus far has consisted of nothing more than ‘We want gay marriage because we want it’? Your comprehension skills could use a little work. We’ve made our case for gay marriage, and you of course are free to insist that you are unconvinced. But irrespective of whether you think our reasoning is sound or not, there is nothing from stopping you from answering this (unambiguous) question:
Do you, or do you not, believe that changes to Australian marriage laws to facilitate the marriage of gay couples would have negative implications for Australian society and its citizens?
If you do believe there would be negative consequences – what are they?
Iain,
I’d also be interested to read a genuine response to Sammy Jankis’ question from you.
As I said, no point…Ian is delusional..its all there to read..desperate to score sad little cheap points in trying to making it a black and white political debate.
Devoid of compassion or understanding…plain ignorant.
# 68 benski
# Iain
To explain certainly are you suggesting that I am wrong about that?
Suggesting that it has something to do with marriage is not the same as saying that being promiscuous precludes anyone from marriage as you want to claim my position is.
I brought it up because I think that Public acceptance and affirmation of Gay relationships is what the whole point of the push for Gay marriage is actually all about, especially in the light of the changes to so many laws that pertain to de-facto relationships.
I was talking about the way that the subculture is perceived in the wider community and I am making the reasonable observation that until there is a clear perception that enduring monogamous relationships are the norm rather than the exception in the Gay community then the Gay subculture will be seen in the same light as that part of the Heterosexual community who spend their lives hopping from one bed to another,as just a bit sleazy and unsavoury. The Gay community has earned tolerance for the most part but if they want respect then as well then they will have to become respectable.
Any big change to long standing social institutions is quite rightly difficult now I am all for there being some sort of relationship register that protects the interests of those in homosexual unions as long as it does not usurp the marriage act to do so.
I was talking about the way that homosexuals are perceived in society and that is clearly influenced by the perception that there is not the stability in gay relationships that there is in straight couplings.
You may wish for perceptions to be different , but they aren’t so even though you object to this reality it is not going to change any-time soon now is it?
But Its not absurd at all. The members of parliament are elected on the basis that they will act as proxies for the majority of their constituents. A vote in parliament is as good a measure of public sentiments as any survey that you can find, better when you consider that it was a near unanimous vote for the marriage bill
I know you probably expect that anyone who objects to gay marriage to be a religious fundie don’t you?
My position is simply this: Marriage was created as and intended to be a heterosexual institution, It has the primary purpose of providing the foundation for the nurture of children and the continuation of the species. That barren heterosexual couples can currently marry does not invalidate or undermine its primary purpose. homosexual unions have a very different primary purpose, namely to provide mutual pleasure and affirmation in a domestic setting.
I don’t think that it is a necessary requirement of “enlightenment” that Homosexual unions need to be affirmed by usurping the long standing status of marriage being a heterosexual institution. There are other ways of achieving the same thing (such as creating distinct legal instruments that provide for homosexual unions.
Well I naturally disagree with you about the quality of Bill’s argument and I think You make the mistake of dismissing it because you have different underlying assumptions rather than it having any particular failings in logic.
While I agree that Giving homosexual unions some form of social affirmation may be beneficial for homosexuals who desire this I am an essentially cautious person and allowing this may well have unforeseen social consequences if other activists then use “gay marriage” as a precedent to have their proclivities come under the auspices of the marriage act, such changes are not always a good idea.
# 70 joni
And as I thought it does not nominate the sample size or have a direct citation of the actual survey, surely as a self admitted activist you can doe better than that!
#71 Sammy Jankis
No Sammy I just love winding you lot up and on an issue like this one its a case of “light the blue touch paper and step back”
I think that there could very well be negative consequences if Gay marriage is used as a precedent to argue for other types of union (like polygamy or unions of more than two people) there is also the possibility that “designer children” may be alienated from at least one of their biological parents.
Sammy it makes no sense for you (collectively) to advocate changes without addressing the possibility that the change you advocate may in fact be a bad idea that has negative consequences. You want the changes so you have to justify them.
Yes I do
The entirety of your case seems to be based on the spurious contention that it is an equality issue. This spurious because it is based upon a gross misrepresentation of just what a marriage is and the social purpose that has led to its creation in the first place.
I do believe that allowing Gay unions to be called marriage will have negative consequences.
See my earlier response to essentially the same question in this comment
#73 quantize
I don’t know how you keep getting these ad hominem comments past the moderators but your whining about me being able to comment here is just pathetic
Anyone who knows me personally has no trouble acknowledging that I am in fact a most compassionate and understanding man. Your problem is that you think that anyone who does not whole heartedly support your own positions on this issue must by definition be bad, ignorant or even evil. This is just so typical of the Latte-sipper who thinks that he has a monopoly on virtue.
Iain, do you think your tendency to generalise is linked to your bigotry?
“I am in fact a most compassionate and understanding man”
It is not possible for someone to be compassionate and understanding and hold the numerous hate based views you articulate on this and your own blog. Your self delusion is complete, or you are a liar, and you don’t in fact hold these views at all, in which case you are merely an attention seeker :-
“I just love winding you lot up”.
And we should not give you any
Iain admitted he’s a troll. Thanks for the heads up, I wont bother responding to any of your posts any more since you’re trolling.
Morning Iain,
OK now that you’ve finally laid out your case a little more clearly, and you’ve outlined some of your assumptions about me, I think you’ve lost my respect. This is not because of the view you hold but rather because you’ve demonstrated an unwillingness to understand an argument that arises from an inability (or unwillingness) to see the logical fallacies in your own assumptions. This is underscored by your perception that the majority position of society provides a sound basis for an argument in support of that position, rather than understanding that principles, not majority, must underline a position for it to be valid. Quite absurd.
Thanks Iain – it’s refreshing when trolls admit to being trolls.
It most certainly is an equality issue. Couple X is denied the same privileges granted to Couple Y for no good reason.
Hallelujah! See – it wasn’t that hard was it!? For being brave and trying something new you can have a gold star.
An extremely poor reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry. Precisely the same argument would have been used against miscegenation – “If we allow mixed race marriages, they’ll be used as a precedent to argue for polygamy”. It’s known as the slippery slope fallacy. What’s ironic is that while opponents of marriage equality argue that the same arguments for gay marriage could be used to argue for polygamy, it would be more accurate to say that the arguments against gay marriage could be used to argue against miscegenation:
“This is the way marriage has always been!”
“That’s just how marriage is defined!”
“If we allow this, we’ll have to allow all sorts of marital arrangements”
“Think of the children!”
“People in mixed race relationships can get married – they just have to marry someone of the same race. The same rules apply to those in same race relationships – there’s no discrimination!”
What exactly do you mean by this? It looks like a variation of one of those “Think of the children!” arguments. It seems that you’re suggesting that homosexuals raise children not because of any maternal/paternal desire but because they view them as fashion accessories. If that is what you’re suggesting, I must tell you that you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as ignorant bigoted prejudice is concerned.
So, after much pleading and begging we’re finally offered your concerns about homosexual marriage:
1) “Polygamists might use similar arguments to argue for polygamy!”
2) Homosexuals might start having “designer children”!
If these are the best arguments your side can offer, then we might have marriage equality in this country much sooner than I thought.
It’s been demonstrated that your “negative consequences” are a complete furphy. The changes have been well and truly justified.
Let’s be frank. Trying to discuss this issue with you is a complete waste of everyone’s time. You engage in childish obfuscation – “Homosexuals can get married, as long as it’s to someone of the opposite gender!” You repeatedly insist you are part of a non-existent majority. You require a question to be asked of you several times before you’ll answer it. You freely admit that you are here to ‘wind us up’ – classic trolling behaviour.
Benski
I do understand your argument well enough its just that I disagree with it for the reasons that I have extensively explained here.
We live in a democracy which means that in all things we accept that a majority of our fellow citizens have the right, through our representatives to make the laws that we all agree to live by to have it any other way is to live in a totalitarian dictatorship, so perhaps you might reconsider your attack upon the democratic process.
Rob J
You have never respected my arguments anyway so I am indifferent to your suggestion that you will ignore me now.
Eric
Name ten “hate based” views that you claim I hold and give reasons for your claims
@ Iain
I’m drawn again to comment to point out the lunacy in your position, that will hopefully help you understand the reasons behind my comment #78.
“My position is simply this: Marriage was created as and intended to be a heterosexual institution,”
It was, and at the time we considered homesexuality to be a crime. We as a society no longer consider it as such.
“…It has the primary purpose of providing the foundation for the nurture of children and the continuation of the species.”
Marriage is not required for the continuation of the species and it never was. It provides nothing more than social recognition of the significance of a couple’s relationship. Marriage in and of itself has little to do with offspring, it’s not required for the production of offspring, and is not a requirement of society to produce and care for offspring and it doesn’t guarantee the production of offspring or its wellbeing. Therefore there are no grounds to make it exclusive to those who can reproduce.
“That barren heterosexual couples can currently marry does not invalidate or undermine its primary purpose.”
Then neither would homosexuals marrying. It is simply unrelated.
“homosexual unions have a very different primary purpose, namely to provide mutual pleasure and affirmation in a domestic setting.”
That sounds rather like my marriage. But strangely you ignore everything else a gay relationship provides for its participants, like love and support in every day life, the sharing of household duties, and someone to grow old with (all sounds like my marriage).
The fact that you basically begin and end with “provide mutual pleasure” (I’m not actually sure what affirmation in a domestic setting means) tells me you can’t see past the sexual act which is the only difference between gay and straight couples. In every other way, the relationship between the participants is the same. Yet you can’t see that because you taint a mature gay relationship with your dim view of the actions of other people who have sex the same way. Then you justify the position, despite it having no logical foundation, with the argument that it’s ok because most people think that way.
And you wonder why these arguments are considered bigotted? Unbelievable.
“so perhaps you might reconsider your attack upon the democratic process”
yawn, wake up Iain. I wrongly thought you were smarter than that. I’ll spell it out for you because apparently you need me to.
The majority is not by definition, right. It is the view held by most. Nothing more.
As you seem to understand, in a democracy the majority view in parliament is the position taken by the govt, but that does not mean it is a logical justification of that view. If you can’t see that, then fair dinkum, maybe it’s not bigotry you’re displaying here but rather an unfortunate lack of intelligence.
My God!Is there nothing that Iain Hall does not have an expert opinion on?
Crikey you should call this blog the Iain Hall show, because the topics are mainly about his opinion on other peoples, opinions.Never have I read such self opinionated rubbish in my life.
I wish people would ignore this {removed that final part – Tobby}
GaryM: Iain’s intent on this thread is evident with the first comment he made here: to bait Jeremy. Now that Jeremy has decided to ignore Iain, the only thing left for him to do is to try to bait other commenters with his inflammatory, ignorant ramblings. He is simply using the same debunked talking points on same sex marriage that he’s used time and time again in the past. No matter what other people say, Iain will shift the goalposts and try more circular argument-type tactics. He always does this. If other people ignored him as well, you’d soon discover that he wouldn’t comment here anymore. There’s no point baiting people if those people refuse to bite.
Presumably, if one of the major parties had a sudden change of heart and Australia’s marriage laws were amended in paliament to allow for SSM’s, you’d happily accept the outcome and just shut up about it?
Yes, we do live in a democracy. A liberal democracy, meaning that your rights end where mine begin. This approach to democracy works well, because we’ve recognised that what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right. In our democracy Iain, 51% of the citizenry cannot vote away the rights of minorities.
Seeking to change the laws concerning marriage through political action is an “attack upon the democratic process”? Maybe on the planet Iaintopia.
Iain, I missed your response about what made your view of what is the primary reason and purpose of sexuality more than the view of others.
confessions I am toatally perplexed on why people give this troll any oxygen at all.
I really thought that people that think like Iain Hall were a thing of the past?It is obvious Nuremberg was a total failure.Still Mosely just like Hall was English, maybe they’re related?
# 79 Sammy Jankis
Sammy there are many pleasures to be had when it comes to the net, are you going to tell us that you have never taken pleasure in winding up those you argue the toss with?
That is a stupidly simplistic argument because if there is a qualitative difference be in the nature of the couples then you are suggesting that a tennis ball is the same as an apple because they happen to be the same colour.
This is an extremely poor argument that is just not valid because the two things are not analogous at all.
The facts of the matter are that laws against mixed race marriage are and have been rare and they are entirely discredited /abolished. You only make this connection in a weak attempt to equate objection to gay unions being classified as marriage to racism
I think that anonymous donor insemination, IVF and surrogacy are like closed adoption far from a good start for any child because the potential to alienate that child from its biological heritage. This concern of mine goes for gays and straights who want to have children this way. However as lobbying for such things is part of the Gay marriage agenda it is reasonable that they be considered as part of the issue.
We are not likely to have any change to the marriage act in the foreseeable future because apart from the loony Greens no party will touch the issue let alone propose any changes So the “strength” of my argument is moot.
But clearly there is not enough justification to encourage either of the major parties to move any changes to the marriage act. Now you can whine and moan about it until the cows come home but you will just be pissing into the wind and the more that you demonise those who object to Gay marriage rather than try to persuade them that change is both beneficial and necessary the longer it will take to achieve the change that you desire.
You should appreciate the fact that people of good will have been happy to endorse the changes that give Gay de-facto unions the same recognitions and protections as straight de-facto unions. I am one of them but I make no apology for thinking and arguing that calling such unions “marriage”is wrong.
# 81 benski
My position may be at odds with yours but it is entirely sane
and I agree that this a good thing but it does does not follow at all that accepting homosexuals means that we have to endorse their relationships by including them under the terms of the marriage act.
That is true in the strictest biological sense, but it is not just the continuation of the species that is at stake here. The whole structure of our society is based upon notions of what constitutes a family and messing with such things should not be done without a great deal of thought and care.
I take it that you are being entirely theoretical here. But my counter argument to your suggestion is that all property issues upon the disillusion of the relationship or matters of inheritance can be dealt with by other legal instruments for homosexual couples.
As above
&
Just because you think that a gay relationship is “like ” a marriage does not make it one just as a replica Lamborghini made out of an old VW is not the real thing no matter how much it may look like one. That said I would be more than happy to acknowledge the right of the owner of a replica Lamborghini to drive as he pleases as long as he does not demand that it be registered as a Lamborghini
I believe in and support the democratic process and I accept that the fundamentally sound system that we enjoy has taken many years of argument and debate so that it can evolve to the point that we are at now. It will continue to be changed and modified in small careful increments and each change should be slow and allowed to “bed in” well before being further modified. Now thanks to the democratic process our Gay friends can enjoy all of the benefits and obligations that straight de-factos enjoy. Lets see how that works for a few years before anything else is changed because like it or not that is what you Gay marriage enthusiasts are going to have to do anyway.
#86Shaun HC
Your comment does not make sense care to try again?
Ok thanks Iain. You’ve clarified a lot of things for me with that last one.
I wish I had my wasted time back now.
Confessions, GaryM,
I apologise.
Does anyone here speak Iain? If so would you kindly translate the above passage?
Yes, they are.
Not the point. It doesn’t change the fact that the same arguments would have been used in opposing change.
Given the increasing support for marriage equality it won’t be too long until it becomes a political liability to oppose gay marriage. No doubt there are members of both the major parties who support the change, but won’t say anything just yet for the sake of party unity – Penny Wong for example.
See above.
I refer you again to the change in public support for gay marriage in recent times. I’d say we’re doing a pretty good job of persuading people thank you very much.
#
#85 Sammy Jankis
Sammy were it to be passed by the parliament I might very well say that I think that it is a bad decision, but ultimately I would accept the decision of our elected parliament and take a watching brief to see just what happens.
Yes, we do live in a democracy. A liberal democracy, meaning that your rights end where mine begin.
WTF? this is bullshit! You and I enjoy the same rights and there is no circumstance when either of us has to concede a single one of those rights so that the other can enjoy rights of their own, Not a single one .
Now you bring up the tired line about the “majority oppressing a minority” when the majority is just not doing that at all when it comes to homosexuals. In fact it is a very large majority of the parliament that has voted for the recognition of De-facto homosexual partnerships so your claim of “oppression” is in fact rather shallow and based entirely upon the notion that to oppose Gay marrige is to oppress homosexuals. Not being able to call their relationships marriage does not cause any harm to a single homosexual in this country. not one.
Seek to change what you will but don’t demonise those who disagree with the changes that you desire but my comment was not addressed to you it was addressed to Benski who was suggesting that same fallacy about the majority “oppressing” a minority if they oppose gay marriage.
#87 GaryM
Oh how lovely Garry! You earn the Godwin award for this comment!!!
Iain
“The near unanimous vote for the marriage bill says it all really what more do you want?”
A vote in Parliament is hardly an indication of what the majority of people think and to suggest it is shows how utterly out of touch you are.
If that’s the only survey you can come up with your argument is truly lost.
The problem with you Ian is there’s no difference between your supposedly ‘real’ arguments and your winding up…they both sound so interchangeably silly..
The expression “Your rights end where mine begin” (and vice-versa) implies that if I wish to perform a certain action which infringes upon your rights, then I have no right to perform that action. It’s a pretty straightforward and uncontroversial phrase which summarises how rights function in a liberal democracy – I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you’re a completely confused.
Of course the majority of Australian’s aren’t oppressing homosexuals, how could they when they support marriage equality. The discrimination lies in legislation enacted in the past when the majority did wish to see homosexuals discriminated against. That’s not the case anymore.
It’s not just about what they “call their relationships” – it’s about access to the same privileges that married heterosexual couples enjoy. Your suggestion that recent improvements in gay rights should be enough and we should all just shut up and be happy with what we’ve got is also amusing. I suppose women should have been content enough with the vote – asking to be treated exactly the same as men in all facets of life was just political correctness gone mad.
Just out of interest, are you one of these “Let them have an institution exactly the same as marriage in every way but just don’t call it marriage” folk?
I’ll continue to “demonise” (i.e. criticize) who I like. Since you’ve not defended your accusation of an “attack on the democratic process”, perhaps realising that it is just more thoughtless rhetoric (though I doubt it), will you retract it?
Anyway, I think I’m done here. Despite being handed evidence which directly contradicts your assertions, you continue to recycle the same talking points over and over. Boring. I’ll be interested to read your next deluge of illogical blather, but I just don’t think there will much point responding to it.
# 92 surlysimon
On the contrary a near unanimous vote in the parliament is a very good indication of how the people feel about this issue But if you are so sure that the mood of the public is so pro gay marriage then why are you not advocating for some sort of referendum on the issue? Strangely when such things are put to a public vote as they were in California the result is not the sort of affirmation for Gay marriage that you are claiming here.
# 93 quantize
Well it looks like you need to improve your reading and comprehension skills then!
#94 Sammy Jankis
WTF? this is bullsh&t! You and I enjoy the same rights and there is no circumstance when either of us has to concede a single one of those rights so that the other can enjoy rights of their own, Not a single one .
I’m not confused, its just that I have never heard the expression before.
That argument is just so flawed because you base it on your unsupported assertion that to oppose gay marriage is to ” Oppress” Gays. I don’t want to see gays oppressed or vilified for being themselves, loving whom so ever they please or living their lives anyway that they chose. The only part of the Gay agenda that I object to is the desire to alter the marriage act to include same sex unions.
You are prevaricating Sammy, just what are the specific privileges are they denied by the status quo? be specific please.
Not quite, but I do support the creation of separate legal instruments to specifically address the needs of homosexual couples
Well you are free to do so but you and your cronies are being naive if you think that denouncing those of us who object to gay marriage but are otherwise supportive of homosexuals as “Bigots” will help your cause. As I see it doing that crises the line between persuasion and bullying.
Certainly not!
Your “evidence” may contradict my argument but it does not make your case. As I have been saying all along there is no substantial appetite for change to the marriage act in this country and no matter what arguments you may trot out fro change you can’t get over that hurdle your task if you want change is to convince people that the change you propose will have a positive benefit for the whole country not just for the noisy minority that you represent.
Iain
“On the contrary a near unanimous vote in the parliament is a very good indication of how the people feel about this issue”
Says WHO! you make these grand, ridiculus statments and expect us to just accept them. Where as he wants to dissmis properly conducted polls done with a recognised research criteria.
Best of all Iain’s argument about promiscuity is a strawman because surely the whole point of marriage is to encourage monogamy so if you think promiscuity in the Homosexual comunity is bad why not encourage homesexuals to get married, oh I forgot you don’t want them to. Now can you see why your position is one of a true bigot Iain? Your arguments are illogical and simply expose what is at the core a simple dislike of homosexuality.
# 96 surlysimon
We accept that a unanimous vote of the Parliament when it comes to something like a condolence motion for a natural disaster is representative of the entire nation’s feeling. So why is it any different when the vote is about the nature of marriage?
I think that when it gets down to it your suggestion is a classic chicken and egg dichotomy, you know which comes first? I maintain that if enduing pair bonds becomes the norm for homosexuals then there may be a stronger argument for Gay marriage but until that is so then the case is rather weak. As I said earlier in this thread the heart of the push for Gay marriage isn’t the “privileges” of marriage but a desire for public affirmation . Personally I think that it is a bridge too far for Australia in 2010 and as a conservative I think that all change should be cautious and incremental. We have just changed a whole swag of laws and regulations that pertain to same sex couples and I fully endorse every one of those changes but I truly believe that we should now wait and see how things go with the new paradigm and let time tell us if more change is needed.
As a straight man of course I “dislike” homosexuality but that does not mean that I dislike homosexuals or that I have any animosity towards them which of course means that I do not meet the definition of bigotry:
I have no intolerance, irrationality, and animosity towards homosexuals I just happen to think that marriage is correctly defined as a heterosexual institution and that there is no pressing reason to change that.
“As a straight man of course I “dislike” homosexuality…”..it is the “of course” in this statement that unambiguously demonstrates what a bigot you actually are.
Case closed.
Eric
I was sure that some idiot would think that my “disliking” homosexuality is the same as hating it or those who have no choice in who they desire. Thanks for proving just how narrow minded you latte sippers are
I dislike bread with seeds in it are you going to say that doing so makes me a “Bread Bigot”?
Grow a brain !
Iain compares someone’s sexuality, that of a human being to bread! Marvellous.
It was not the word dislike I pulled you up on dear boy.
Appeal denied.
We’ve been feeding the troll for 100 comments now, yet the logic and coherency on offer from said troll continues to plummet to new depths.
Case in point:
In Iain’s world, the most appropriate measure of public support for marriage equality today is not a public survey conducted in June 2009, but an extrapolation of the voting habits of parliament in June 2004. Opinion polls could show 90% support for change, but Iain would still call proponents of marriage equality a “noisy minority” citing the small number of parliamentarians who voted against the Marriage Amendment Act in June 2004.
Honestly, how can anyone ever hope to talk sense into someone who demonstrates such bizarre failings in logic? Reading his contributions leaves me with mixed emotions of amusement and pity.
“I have no intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward Homosexuals”
No Iain you just want to paint them as being unworthy of full societal rights because of the sexual practices of a minority. By the Wiki definition you provide you are indeed a bigot, you have an irrational intolerant animosity towards “latte sippers”
And you are a seed bigot, not a bread bigot.
I have no time for seed bigots.
Sorry meant to say:
Iain, I missed your response about what made your view of what is the primary reason and purpose of sexuality more correct than the view of others.
I.e. what if someone sees the primary reason for sex to be pleasure? Because according to the way your statement was worded, they are simply incorrect. Did you really mean to claim that your view was the only view?
Eric
I’m still waiting for you to “name ten” hateful things that you claim I espouse at my blog and elsewhere.
Sammy
Do you support our system of parliamentary democracy?
and do you realise that any survey with say a sample size of 1000 people is never going to be that accurate in judging the feelings of a population of 20 million.
Simon
re read my argument please because you paraphrase is actually very inaccurate.
Oh and my feelings about “latte sippers” do not include any animosity heck I will even share a Bevvy or two with them when I get the chance.
Benski
I suspect that you actually have a sense of humour
Shaun
there is no doubt that the primary reason that we have two genders and the desire to mate is to continue the species. So it stands to reason that sex being pleasurable is not its primary purpose at all, it is an incentive for humans to mate but it is not an end in itself distinct from the biological imperative.