Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[Rorix]

Yes. I can understand how, when one hasn't matured in 10 years, one might consider something said over two weeks ago as timelessly true.

 

[tWiStEdD]

We've all been pretty keen on this thread, havent we... i for one have not been able to keep up.... Perhaps i will read it all tomorrow....

Marriage has been defined by law. It will stay that way until such time as a 'change' is needed... but the institution of marriage relies so greatly on the union of a man and a woman.... Perhaps an alternative can be worked out for gay couples... that would be fair to all of us, wouldnt it?

I percieve homosexuality to be a mental problem... i'm sorry to everyone i offend by saying that, but homosexuality IS brought about through the conditioning of an individual from a young age. The line between males and females is blurred nowadays. We have men doing traditional female jobs and females doing traditional male jobs and as such kids do not seperate males and females as much, rather they are percieved to be equal. I have no 'clinical' explaination for this, but its true that since the early 20th century the genders have been made more and more equal as time goes by.... men and women are different, but should be equally respected. I am by no means advocating the 'rule of thumb', rather setting down that men have general roles and women have general roles... and they should stick to them, just like they do in the animal kingdom. seperate, but equal.

If gays WANT to publically declare their union, then they should not be given access to the age-old tradition that marriage. We have had this tradition for thousands of years, and it should not be changed to suit what is a vocal minority. Let them initiate their own tradition but let us change such an important tradition to suit others who dont make the grade.

 

[eviltama]

We've all been pretty keen on this thread, havent we... i for one have not been able to keep up.... Perhaps i will read it all tomorrow....

Perhaps you should take the time to read where we are up to, it might enlighten your view.

Marriage has been defined by law. It will stay that way until such time as a 'change' is needed... but the institution of marriage relies so greatly on the union of a man and a woman.... Perhaps an alternative can be worked out for gay couples... that would be fair to all of us, wouldnt it?

Marriage has also been defined as a religious, social, cultural and individual event.. all such events have different definitions. And if you hadn't noticed this thread is about the banning of homosexual marriage, which would essentially lock in the definition making it less open to the change we are argueing for and against in the thread.

If as you see it marriage as an institution relies 'so greatly' upon being the union of a man and woman, then i for one would delight in seeing it crumble. But alas marriage is not, and does not rest soley upon the shoulders of heterosexuality and removing sexuality from the definition of marriage will not damage the institution, nor will it crumble (bugger eh?). An alternative... would it be fair? No. If you hadn't added your last line(of the post) i might have conceeded that the alternative proposal had merit but also its flaws which have been discussed at length in the thread.

I percieve homosexuality to be a mental problem... i'm sorry to everyone i offend by saying that, but homosexuality IS brought about through the conditioning of an individual from a young age.

You're sorry to everyone you offend? You're telling me in your perception (as great and as worldly as it is) a good handful of my friends and family have mental problems. Thats really nice. Thanks. And homosexuality is not brought about throught the conditioning of an individual from a young age, but the debate as to how homosexuality comes to be has been had and there is no definite proof to either side... just as their is no proof to say heterosexuality is natural.. we just assume that is because a majority of people claim to be heterosexual and its echoed in the animal kingdom... so is homosexuality by the way, but that doesn't seem enough proof to most that its still a natural occurance within nature. Also with your expert opinion, perhaps you'd like to go out and meet some homosexuals and tell them exactly how you think they came to be. I'm sure they wouldn't hurt you much...

The line between males and females is blurred nowadays. I am by no means advocating the 'rule of thumb', rather setting down that men have general roles and women have general roles... and they should stick to them, just like they do in the animal kingdom. seperate, but equal.

Fair enough the so called 'natural' roles of men and women in society have been blurred and in some cases changed entirely. It doesn't imply for the best nor does it imply for the worst. An interesting example... men are seen as hunters... yet it is the lioness that hunts for food for her cubs. Women are seen as caretakers and home makers, yet in various species of birds the male and female birds take equal care of the egg and chicks, often it is the female who hunts and the male who stays to warm the egg or mind the chicks. Life, regardless of in human nature or the animal kingdom is never so simple. Its even more complicated when choice is a factor, some men don't want to work.. and their wives do. Seperate but equal doesn't cut it when talking about humans. Seperate implies difference. not equality.

If gays WANT to publically declare their union, then they should not be given access to the age-old tradition that marriage. We have had this tradition for thousands of years, and it should not be changed to suit what is a vocal minority. Let them initiate their own tradition but let us change such an important tradition to suit others who dont make the grade.

So marriage is the exclusive realm of heterosexuals, how quaint that you think so. Now see this is where those silly little ideas about homosexuals being 2nd class citizens come from. Those ideas are false of course, but they have to get started somehow... And i'm sorry if i offend you, but go get f*cked. Homosexuals are not 2nd class citizens, there is no 'grade', humans are not categorised at birth and graded, we are not prime quality beef and no man or woman is any more or less than his or her brother or sister. Thats just fkn ridiculous. Heterosexuality is not a 'grade', it is not something we all strive to achieve, it is not perfection personified in sexual acts, hell its not even anything remotely similar. No one is born with a stamp on their butt saying 'imperfect' or 'perfect' or anything the like. We do not live in gattica.
*leaves before getting overly abusive*

 

[fruitbonbon17]

I percieve homosexuality to be a mental problem... i'm sorry to everyone i offend by saying that, but homosexuality IS brought about through the conditioning of an individual from a young age. The line between males and females is blurred nowadays. We have men doing traditional female jobs and females doing traditional male jobs and as such kids do not seperate males and females as much, rather they are percieved to be equal. I have no 'clinical' explaination for this, but its true that since the early 20th century the genders have been made more and more equal as time goes by.... men and women are different, but should be equally respected. I am by no means advocating the 'rule of thumb', rather setting down that men have general roles and women have general roles... and they should stick to them, just like they do in the animal kingdom. seperate, but equal.

lol homosexuality didn't begin in the 20th century you know...

 

[neo o]

there will never be equality between women and men.

While in an ideal situation it'd be lovely if both genders were on equal footing and had equal oppurtunity but there are inherant differences between both genders. By merely noticing someone's gender, you are discriminating, it's human nature to judge someone on what we see...

 

[poloktim]

Marriage has been defined by law. It will stay that way until such time as a 'change' is needed... but the institution of marriage relies so greatly on the union of a man and a woman.... Perhaps an alternative can be worked out for gay couples... that would be fair to all of us, wouldnt it?

This option has already been discussed. I've made a few statements on how this is segregation. In an egalitarian society, segregation should be kept to a minimum. However, no matter what anyone says, Australia is far from egalitarian, this is mirrored in government. The current government are conservative. In my opinion it's nice to have a conservative government, but there are some issues in which conservativeness (I doubt that's a word, mind you), is bad. Again, in my opinion, this is one of them.

I percieve homosexuality to be a mental problem... i'm sorry to everyone i offend by saying that, but homosexuality IS brought about through the conditioning of an individual from a young age.

You can perceive homosexuality as anything you want, hell you can perceive cancer as a mental problem if you want. Your theories would be uneducated and ignored. Research has been taken up in the field, and people will believe the researchers (who have educated opinions), over yours.
You think homosexuality is a mental disorder, fine, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung don't agree. It was Sigmund Freud who said that it is unethical, immoral, and socially unacceptable for any practicing psychologist or psychiatrist (or any doctor) to attempt to "cure" a homosexual, as there is no disease present (a complete contradiction of your theory). Any attempts to cure him/her will likely result in mental problems (such as rage, or depression) later on in life.

The line between males and females is blurred nowadays. We have men doing traditional female jobs and females doing traditional male jobs and as such kids do not seperate males and females as much, rather they are percieved to be equal. I have no 'clinical' explaination for this, but its true that since the early 20th century the genders have been made more and more equal as time goes by.... men and women are different, but should be equally respected. I am by no means advocating the 'rule of thumb', rather setting down that men have general roles and women have general roles... and they should stick to them, just like they do in the animal kingdom. seperate, but equal.

I've already explained that seperate but equal means segregation. Also that segregation is bad.

If gays WANT to publically declare their union, then they should not be given access to the age-old tradition that marriage. We have had this tradition for thousands of years, and it should not be changed to suit what is a vocal minority. Let them initiate their own tradition but let us change such an important tradition to suit others who dont make the grade.

I agree with eviltama to a point. Not to the point of swearing though. We are not in the setting of Brave New World*, there are no definitive castes for society. The law itself has deemed it wrong for people to publically (by publically I mean in such places as the workforce) treat homosexual people as epsilons while heterosexuals are treated as alphas.
*Note: I'm aware in BNW that there is no marriage, as promiscuity is enforced. I was making reference to the "caste" system that Aldous Huxley implemented in that world.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Ah damn I have some catching up to do. I think it'd be expedient if we do a bit of a summary of the most recent points.


Summary

I. Religion should not be brought into this debate
Virtually anything based on God or the Bible uses controversial premises and therefore cannot contribute to a logical argument. This is irrefutable.


II. Democratic & Christian/Catholic Arguments
These are arguments based on majority and religion, and have had little merit. Even if 70% of Australia is Catholic/Christian, this says nothing about what is right, only what is popular.


III. Specific Points Raised Against Gay Marriage
Devaluing the institution of marriage - this is the weakest one and has been ripped apart. See especially the posts on that by eviltama.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman - this is a pointless argument because it is the whole issue of the debate. What we're saying is why can't we define marriage as the union of 2 people? No conclusive answer has been given.

Deprivation of a parental role - that the interests of the child in having 2 parents of the same sex would somehow be depreciated because they'd miss out on a type of role model. Although flawed, I think this is the strongest one.

Gay marriage is not 'natural' or would produce deformities in offspring - but since homosexuals don't procreate there is no substance here.

Homosexuality is some deformity or such which ought to be stamped out - an interesting, disturbingly discriminatory approach that has no logical rationale.


IV. The new gay marriage laws are not technically discriminatory
I believe Rorix showed that on a technical level, the laws are specifically written not to target a specific group, rather to simply ignore the specific group. While in effect this may produce an inequality, I asked my public law lecturer on this and he agreed that (while the laws are unfair) they probably wouldn't be able to be struck down under discrimination laws.


V. The onus is on the person wanting the change to prove why
I agree with this point raised by Rorix. I think there have been a number of valid responses however.


Now

I think that Rorix and a few people were about here, correct me if I'm mistaken:

1. Treating people equally is the right thing to do, unless there is a reason not to
2. Banning gay marriages is not discrimination
3. Banning gay marriages is not treating people equally however

I'm not sure if we totally agreed on point 3. There were some technical arguments. But I think they sound dangerously like "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others." I'm sure you know where that comes from

The way I see it, the argument should be fought under the exception in point 1 - "unless there is a reason not to."

Most of these reasons, as you said Rorix, are fairly weak. I think the strongest one, if it can be called so, that was brought up is that a child might be deprived of a specific parental role - male or female.


tWiStEdD

I percieve homosexuality to be a mental problem...

Incorrect. Homosexuality was specifically removed from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Check the DSM IV, you won't find it there.

i'm sorry to everyone i offend by saying that, but homosexuality IS brought about through the conditioning of an individual from a young age.

There is no conclusive evidence of that, and even if it were the case, gay people exist who have no choice over their sexuality.

If gays WANT to publically declare their union, then they should not be given access to the age-old tradition that [is] marriage. We have had this tradition for thousands of years

A huge fallacy here of appealling to tradition.

and it should not be changed to suit what is a vocal minority.

Fallacy: appeal to majority.

 

[400miles]

there will always be equality between women and men.

While in an ideal situation it'd be lovely if both genders were on equal footing and had equal oppurtunity but there are inherant differences between both genders. By merely noticing someone's gender, you are discriminating, it's human nature to judge someone on what we see...

I disagree. By noticing someone's gender you're not at all discriminating unless you're treating them in a way that is derogatory or unfair in relation to the way you would treat someone of the other gender.
Noticing something different is not discriminating. Discriminating is being unfair to someone different BECAUSE they're different.

Still waiting on the answers to my questions btw.

Yes. I can understand how, when one hasn't matured in 10 years, one might consider something said over two weeks ago as timelessly true.

Oh yes, of course, it all comes down to my maturity. It's got nothing to do with your hypocracy. But oh well, truth is in the eye of the beholder, they say. I didn't say what you said 2 weeks ago was 'timelessly true' i said it was 'ironic'. Big difference, son.

 

[Generator]

'I. Religion should not be brought into this debate
Virtually anything based on God or the Bible uses controversial premises and therefore cannot contribute to a logical argument. This is irrefutable.'

If the issue concerns marriage, then how can religion be left out of the debate?
I can see no reason to hold the values of the 'civil left' up above those of the 'christian right'* (very broad generalisations, but I hope that my point gets through).


*IN THIS DEBATE! It cannot be a debate if one general side merely disregards the arguments of another group on religious grounds. I stand with the civil left, if that counts for anything.

 

[400miles]

If the issue concerns marriage, then how can religion be left out of the debate?

Because marriage isn't always (and often is not) used as a religious sacrament.

 

[Generator]

Because marriage isn't always (and often is not) used as a religious sacrament.

Now. Not always. I know that the term is evolving, but you cannot just ignore the past.

 

[400miles]

Now. Not always. I know that the term is evolving, but you cannot just ignore the past.

No, but we're debating a contemporary issue about marriage in a contemporary society. And thus, it's pretty inappropriate to say that marriage has to be concerned with religious views.

 

[Generator]

No, but we're debating a contemporary issue about marriage in a contemporary society. And thus, it's pretty inappropriate to say that marriage has to be concerned with religious views.

It is just as inappropriate to not consider relgious views, too. 'Contemporary society' is far from being as progressive (and widespread) as you believe.

 

[400miles]

It is just as inappropriate to not consider relgious views, too. 'Contemporary society' is far from being as progressive (and widespread) as you believe.

No but in discussing a debate over marriage you're discussing marriage as it is today, a social institution, not a religious institution. Homosexuals have been banned from all marriages, not just religious ones. Sure most people probably would go for a religious marriage (being as the majority of Aus. seem to be religious) but still, we're talking about marriage as a whole, which is (like I said before) a social institution and not a religious one. When bringing up religious arguments you're arguing for marriage as a religious institution instead of a social one. At least, as a social institution, you're arguing for marriage in general, which includes religious forms of marriage.

 

[Generator]

Perceptions. Many see it as a civil institution, yet many see it as a religious institution. I do understand your point that the social form of marriage is inclusive, yet taking such a view simplifies the issue to a certain extent and clearly ignores [what I see as being] the fundamental stumbling block to allowing marriges to take place between people of the same sex (marriage as a relgious institution is the stumbling block, if I wasn't clear).

I do not know whether this is clear, but I am trying to argue for a more 'open' debate rather than for a particular stance.

 

[eviltama]

Marriage is for some a religious institution, but the law does not take that into account. That is why religious debate is well pretty silly, esp since we all might argue different religions which have different perceptions on marriage and that would firstly get us no-where and secondly be pretty useless since religion has no effect on the law at hand.

People see the religious aspect as a stumbling block for allowing homosexual marriage, but its not. The churches can go do what they want under their own roofs and with their own followers, but cannot tell everyone as a whole what to believe. Even with a supposed majority resting under the roofs of christianity/catholicism it doesn't say that all those believe banning homosexual marriages is the right thing. Also what the churches have to say on the matter, whether for or against, should have no bearing on the how the law and our government react. The law is made for society, to reflect society and essentially (to some effect) by society. Our government too follows similar prinicples.

 

[Generator]

Civil law in Australia has a Christian background, and it cannot be ignored so easily.

 

[tWiStEdD]

this isnt fair! if you're gonna leave negative feedback, leave the feedback too... not just the negative.

all this work for nothing....

 

[400miles]

Civil law in Australia has a Christian background, and it cannot be ignored so easily.

Contemporary Australia has a diverse range of religions and of non religious people. This cannot be ignored either. We don't have to look at the past when deciding what our laws should be today... we have to look at today, at society right now. Civil law has a Christian background, but Christianity doesn't fit in with it like it once did and THAT'S what we have to recognise.

I feel the debate actually narrows if we start debating religious ideals, if it were to be an 'open' debate, I feel it'd have to exclude anything that excludes other people - such as debating religious ethics, which excludes those who aren't religious, or part of that religious section in society.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

If the issue concerns marriage, then how can religion be left out of the debate? I can see no reason to hold the values of the 'civil left' up above those of the 'christian right'* (very broad generalisations, but I hope that my point gets through).

What I am saying is, it is a fallacy of argument to use a controversial premise in your reasoning; the very essence of most religious arguments are centered around the existence of God, ergo the inclusion of a religious rationale cannot contribute to a logical argugment.

Arguments that say "The bible says this..." etc, are most the conspicuously useless.