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
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 » Show All
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.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 » Show All