ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: ninwa on September 19, 2012, 10:37:24 am
-
Liberals Senator Cory Bernadi compares gay marriage to bestality
ANIMALS ARE INCAPABLE OF CONSENT YOU STUPID FUCKHEAD
YOU CAN'T COMPARE TWO CONSENTING ADULTS TO ANIMALS HOLY SHIT
HOW THE FUCK DID SOMEONE THIS STUPID MAKE IT TO PARLIAMENT?
-
I haven't even read the article, but just the title makes me so freaking angry.
What the fuck is wrong with people?!!!!
-
Amen to you Nina.
And RTandon, what is wrong with these people? They don't use their brain.
How the f**k did someone this stupid make it to parliament? Coz all you need is a mouth. In general.
-
Mr Hockey said he did not agree with the senator's remarks.
Too fucking late asshole. You implicitly agreed with him when you
1) joined a party known for its conservative social views
2) accepted Bernadi into your party
3) accepted your party leader's continued refusal to allow Liberal politicians a conscience vote on this issue
To anyone reading this who is also against gay marriage:
Fuck you. The future generations will look back on your backwards ideas and shake their heads at your bigotry.
-
All those slinging mud at Bernardi should have a read up on the history and fall of the Roman Empire.
Quality.
-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/controversy-over-cory-bernardi-bestiality-comments/4269604
There we go.
-
He's not comparing gay marriage to beastiality, he's saying that if the definition of marriage can be changed to allow homosexual couples to marry, then what further changes will be made? Will polygamy or beastiality be allowed?
Obviously beastiality is very different to gay marriage, but there seems to be a lot of people saying that he compared the two, which he didn't
-
He's not comparing gay marriage to beastiality, he's saying that if the definition of marriage can be changed to allow homosexual couples to marry, then what further changes will be made? Will polygamy or beastiality be allowed?
Obviously beastiality is very different to gay marriage, but there seems to be a lot of people saying that he compared the two, which he didn't
I wish we could up vote on this board, because I agree with you completely.
-
He's not comparing gay marriage to beastiality, he's saying that if the definition of marriage can be changed to allow homosexual couples to marry, then what further changes will be made? Will polygamy or beastiality be allowed?
Obviously beastiality is very different to gay marriage, but there seems to be a lot of people saying that he compared the two, which he didn't
It is completely fucking stupid to draw ANY sort of parallel between gay marriage and bestiality.
Don't pretend this guy isn't an asshole.
-
He's not comparing gay marriage to beastiality, he's saying that if the definition of marriage can be changed to allow homosexual couples to marry, then what further changes will be made? Will polygamy or beastiality be allowed?
Obviously beastiality is very different to gay marriage, but there seems to be a lot of people saying that he compared the two, which he didn't
I wish we could up vote on this board, because I agree with you completely.
I disagree. Whilst it may be possible to redefine marriage in terms of how we want - after all, what's in a name, as Shakespeare said - it's up to society to determine WHAT defines a LEGAL LEGITIMATE marriage. We can say 'union between two men or two women?' No problem. A union between 3 or 4 people, all consenting? No problem. A union between a human and an animal, of which the animal cannot give consent? We could redefine marriage to include it, because marriage is just a word after all, but will it ever become a legal legitimate marriage? No. There's a very strong boundary there.
-
He's not comparing gay marriage to beastiality, he's saying that if the definition of marriage can be changed to allow homosexual couples to marry, then what further changes will be made? Will polygamy or beastiality be allowed?
Obviously beastiality is very different to gay marriage, but there seems to be a lot of people saying that he compared the two, which he didn't
I wish we could up vote on this board, because I agree with you completely.
I disagree. Whilst it may be possible to redefine marriage in terms of how we want - after all, what's in a name, as Shakespeare said - it's up to society to determine WHAT defines a LEGAL LEGITIMATE marriage. We can say 'union between two men or two women?' No problem. A union between 3 or 4 people, all consenting? No problem. A union between a human and an animal, of which the animal cannot give consent? We could redefine marriage to include it, because marriage is just a word after all, but will it ever become a legal legitimate marriage? No. There's a very strong boundary there.
That's supposing there is no inherent link between the semantic definition of the word marriage and the legal definition. Sure, there might be a boundary of sorts, but wouldn't you say for instance that the increasing (though still inadequate) political support for gay marriage seems to be at least partially driven by the fact that society has re-oriented its perspective on what the word "marriage" can actually entail in its definition?
Not that I'm supporting Bernadi at all on this point particularly - as Nina points out in the OP, there are issues of consent (and just a whole array of other ethical and, well, basic human rights concerns) which not only make this comparison totally absurd, but also which render this potential for semantic re-definition to include beastiality or whatever completely implausible within reality.
-
All those slinging mud at Bernardi should have a read up on the history and fall of the Roman Empire.
Quality.
The Vandals are invading? :o :o :o :o
-
Liberals Senator Cory Bernadi compares gay marriage to bestality
ANIMALS ARE INCAPABLE OF CONSENT YOU STUPID FUCKHEAD
YOU CAN'T COMPARE TWO CONSENTING ADULTS TO ANIMALS HOLY SHIT
HOW THE FUCK DID SOMEONE THIS STUPID MAKE IT TO PARLIAMENT?
The amount of times this argument has came up when I argue for the position of gay-marriage is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting. In fact just 3 weeks ago my brother said his Sunday school teacher said if we legalize gay marriage then people will also start wanting bestiality to be legalized.
I actually feel so sorry for gay people who have to go through this rubbish every single day of their lives!
-
If you love the slippery slope so much, why don't you go marry it? Oh wait, you can't hue hue hue
-
Yeah i can understand how a direct comparison of the two can be seen as very offensive. But seeing as this is the rants and debate forum, can i just say that not supporting gay marriage, while not unfairly discriminating against people's sexuality socially, professionally ext, doesn't necessarily make you an asshole but someone with a different view on where they want society to go?
if that what he actually said i can see how people are annoyed, but nowadays its almost and insta-lynch if anyone says anything besides pro gay marriage. Arguments aside, im sick of watching people be publicly bullied for having an honest opinion, and the bully is somehow the top bloke.
'i don't mind gay's, its the activists i cant stand'
#Rant end
-
There's no such thing as being against gay marriage but not discriminating.
-
Yeah i can understand how a direct comparison of the two can be seen as very offensive. But seeing as this is the rants and debate forum, can i just say that not supporting gay marriage, while not unfairly discriminating against people's sexuality socially, professionally ext, doesn't necessarily make you an asshole but someone with a different view on where they want society to go?
What... you mean a segregated society? One which discriminates against people of different sexualities? Yeah sorry but if you're for that then you ARE an asshole.
There's no such thing as being against gay marriage but not discriminating.
Lol, I was listening to some Tasmanian Senator in the Senate debate on this today, and she was like "I don't like that you're calling me bigoted, I don't discriminate against homosexual couples, in fact I helped a gay couple do this and that blahblahblah I'm such an angel... However I think marriage should be between a man and a woman because heterosexual relationships are fundamentally different from homosexual ones"
Unbelievable...
-
There's no such thing as being against gay marriage but not discriminating.
I agree, but I think the point bob is making is sort of legitimate - in some ways I think it's detrimental to be overly aggressive towards people who hold views which might even be considered immoral. When people are (to put it bluntly) mean or angry at you, it's hard for you to think rationally about why you're wrong or even comprehend rational arguments, even when the meanness is combined with a fair explanation for why the immorality might be the case. I think, just as with anything, it's easier to learn when taught in a way that is not tinged with aggression: I've seen it myself, that people are much more likely to understand your perspective and even convert, if you simply approach them gently about things.
On this line of analysis, it's probably worth mentioning that often people who don't appreciate that their views are immoral are not wilfully ignorant, or even completely close-minded. If, however, you are aggressive in attacking these sorts of people, they are all the more likely to get defensive about where they stand and less likely to accept opposing beliefs, given that they come to associate said beliefs with anger, aggression, and in some cases even attacks which whilst not necessarily personal come across as such. Again, a reasonable tone and gentleness is likely to come across better than hitting them on the head with a hammer; it's the same thing as teaching.
So following my own words, I'll do my best then to explain as calmly as possible why you can't be opposed to gay marriage without being discriminatory. Marriage is an institution we celebrate because it provides a certain sense of symbolic and legal empowerment for people in dedicated relationships, right? And we keep this in place because we endorse people being in said relationships, since that helps create families, helps people participate more securely as citizens in society (for some; usually the type who would choose marriage), etc.
By extension then, the rejection of gay marriage is suggesting that first of all, we do not value homosexual relationships as being on the same level as straight ones. This is problematic because:
a. At an initial level, it signals to said people that they are recognised by the state as an "other", whose sexual preferences cannot co-exist with a central concern (marriage) of society and
b. Perhaps more problematically, it does not really seem to be founded upon anything other than the fact that homosexuality is same-sex love (other arguments against gay marriage are usually built upon unsound premises, such as the idea that same-sex couples cannot raise families as well as heterosexual ones), and so we are basically just denying these people rights again based only on the idea of their sexual preferences.
Hopefully this makes sense to people :)
-
There's no such thing as being against gay marriage but not discriminating.
I suppose from from a rigorous perspective your right.
What... you mean a segregated society? One which discriminates against people of different sexualities? Yeah sorry but if you're for that then you ARE an asshole.
I haven't stated what im for, because im trying to avoid a Gay marriage debate because that will go on forever with discussion, human rights, Biochemistry, Genetics ext. im trying to avoid all that because its not actually the point i was trying to make. im trying to say that regardless of peoples views, or the effects of them being put into practice, you should never go around verbally abusing people that disagree with you (debates and stuff sure, that's healthy communication). Are you going to say that your thoughts are worth more then anyone else? People can just get so caught up in attacking theoretical injustice that they become inexcusable assholes to everyone else.
-
I'm saying I cannot imagine a decent person would have a "different view on where society should go" that does not include marriage equality.
-
I'm saying I cannot imagine a decent person would have a "different view on where society should go" that does not include marriage equality.
Ideally, but in practice the powers of forces such as community and family are often quite powerful. Somebody who is otherwise a very decent person might be against gay marriage only because their staunchly anti-gay marriage parents have been raging against the television for years for suggesting it's a possibility. That person needs somebody to talk to them reasonably and gently about why their opinion might be wrong, so that they can work it out for themselves and contribute constructively to the discussion about this; confronted with somebody else's anger (even if it is meant to be constructive), they are more likely to see the opposing perspective as an attack on their safety; they will retreat back to their families, the people who, no matter their beliefs, are subconsciously perceived as nurturing and caring figures.
-
There's no such thing as being against gay marriage but not discriminating.
I'm not for same-sex marriage, but I do not discriminate. I am not for *any* state sanctioned marriages.
-
That's just being against marriage. Being against gay marriage lends itself to being for straight ones.
I'd also just like to point out; the whole bestiality argument was used back when interracial couples were illegal and marriage rights were being disgust.
-
EZ, I truly do respect you and your more gentle approach and I can see where you're coming from. I'm sure you can see why people like me are frustrated with the status quo though. People have been rationally and calmly telling these people for years why there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, and yet (as you know) the Bill was once again defeated today by a worryingly large majority. In my opinion it's time to start calling out these people for what they truly are.
-
by a worryingly large majority.
Really? where does this majority come from? i was under the impression that the majority of Australians supported gay marriage, at least overtly anyway.
-
Personally I think this is a step forward for the gay community.
Now that people are being brought out to discuss why they think gay marriage should remain illegal, and defending it with such ridiculous ideas, the majority of the population will come to realise that gay marriage should be allowed.
Hurray for the gays! ~O_O~
-
EZ, I truly do respect you and your more gentle approach and I can see where you're coming from. I'm sure you can see why people like me are frustrated with the status quo though. People have been rationally and calmly telling these people for years why there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, and yet (as you know) the Bill was once again defeated today by a worryingly large majority. In my opinion it's time to start calling out these people for what they truly are.
Part of that large majority could be explained by the fact that the Liberals were instructed to all vote against the bill (as evidenced by Malcolm Turnbull voting it down), although something tells me not that many of them would have voted for it anyway. Admittedly not many in Labor voted for it as well, so you have a point.
-
Really? where does this majority come from? i was under the impression that the majority of Australians supported gay marriage, at least overtly anyway.
Bill was defeated today 98 to 42 http://www.scribd.com/doc/106321292/Same-Sex-Votes
-
EZ, I truly do respect you and your more gentle approach and I can see where you're coming from. I'm sure you can see why people like me are frustrated with the status quo though. People have been rationally and calmly telling these people for years why there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, and yet (as you know) the Bill was once again defeated today by a worryingly large majority. In my opinion it's time to start calling out these people for what they truly are.
Fair enough - I definitely do see where you're coming from, and in particular I can understand the anger being aimed directly at the people higher up, who perhaps are too old to change without some degree of force. Maybe it's just the idealism in me though, but with the younger generation (the population of this forum), it might still be better to more gently sway people, whilst they are at the most critical stage of their intellectual development. Maybe.
Or maybe balancing our two approaches produces a good cop/bad cop effect, and ends up being the most persuasive of all? Haha.
Part of that large majority could be explained by the fact that the Liberals were instructed to all vote against the bill (as evidenced by Malcolm Turnbull voting it down), although something tells me not that many of them would have voted for it anyway. Admittedly not many in Labor voted for it as well, so you have a point.
To be fair, the majority of Labor did vote in favour of it! http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/c0.0.386.386/p403x403/301164_10151197345125516_2056502894_n.jpg
-
Those results pose an interesting question: Would it be right for Labor not to allow a conscience vote, and force them to vote for the bill, coming a lot closer to winning than they did, or allow a conscience vote for all their members, thus losing by a wide margin?
-
Really? where does this majority come from? i was under the impression that the majority of Australians supported gay marriage, at least overtly anyway.
Representative democracy means that you elect MPs to represent you and trust them to do in the way they see fit. So just because the majority want something, doesn't mean it will happen
Those results pose an interesting question: Would it be right for Labor not to allow a conscience vote, and force them to vote for the bill, coming a lot closer to winning than they did, or allow a conscience vote for all their members, thus losing by a wide margin?
Forcing members to vote and losing is a bad political prospect, they would only do it when they were sure they had the numbers
-
Ah politicians.. always a good source of entertainment.
-
If the word "bestiality" was replaced with "incest", perhaps he would have kept his job. It's funny how just one poor choice of words (even if entirely accidental) can lose someone a job and cause millions to hate on them.
I can see what he was trying to say. We start by legalising gay marriage, then people will demand for 3 way marriages and 4 way marriages to be legal, then incestual relationships, and eventually bestiality.
Having said that, I don't think that it is a sufficient argument against gay marriage. By taking something like this to the extreme level, it is really not drawing true justice to the system. It is basically saying "if we don't draw the line here, then the line will not exist!", when in actuality, we can easily choose to draw the line somewhere after the legalisation of gay marriage.
I am disappointed with Greg Hunt (the MP of my local area). I really thought that he would support something like this. My respect for him has just been lowered significantly.
Infact, I am disappointed with Australia as a whole. We are supposed to be a secular society, so why are we letting religious fuckwits like this ruin our global reputation? There is no good, rational, secular argument against gay marriage. It's all the brainwashed, theistic retards that want this to be illegal just so that they can keep their conservative "tradition".
Gay marriage is inevitable. It WILL be legalised one day. So rather than delay the inevitable and make our generation look like intolerant bastards, why don't we just legalise it now and get this whole issue over and done with?
-
If the word "bestiality" was replaced with "incest", perhaps he would have kept his job. It's funny how just one poor choice of words (even if entirely accidental) can lose someone a job and cause millions to hate on them.
I can see what he was trying to say. We start by legalising gay marriage, then people will demand for 3 way marriages and 4 way marriages to be legal, then incestual relationships, and eventually bestiality.
Having said that, I don't think that it is a sufficient argument against gay marriage. By taking something like this to the extreme level, it is really not drawing true justice to the system. It is basically saying "if we don't draw the line here, then the line will not exist!", when in actuality, we can easily choose to draw the line somewhere after the legalisation of gay marriage.
I am disappointed with Greg Hunt (the MP of my local area). I really thought that he would support something like this. My respect for him has just been lowered significantly.
Infact, I am disappointed with Australia as a whole. We are supposed to be a secular society, so why are we letting religious fuckwits like this ruin our global reputation? There is no good, rational, secular argument against gay marriage. It's all the brainwashed, theistic retards that want this to be illegal just so that they can keep their conservative "tradition".
Gay marriage is inevitable. It WILL be legalised one day. So rather than delay the inevitable and make our generation look like intolerant bastards, why don't we just legalise it now and get this whole issue over and done with?
Politician: Marriage is between a man and a woman: therefore your argument is invalid.
-
If the word "bestiality" was replaced with "incest", perhaps he would have kept his job.
umm
-
If the word "bestiality" was replaced with "incest", perhaps he would have kept his job.
umm
Although both of them are considered quite taboo, at least incest involves two humans consenting to each other, so it is more relatable to gay marriage than a human and an animal.
-
If the word "bestiality" was replaced with "incest", perhaps he would have kept his job.
umm
Although both of them are considered quite taboo, at least incest involves two humans consenting to each other, so it is more relatable to gay marriage than a human and an animal.
The fact that we are even discussing this shows how stupid anti-gay arguments are in general.. ffs.
-
I believe that there is a difference between 'disagreeing' and 'discriminating'.
To disagree means simply to have or express a different opinion.
To discriminate means to actively take prejudicial action against someone on the basis of a disagreement.
On a personal level, I disagree with the gay lifestyle, just like I disagree with a lot of things that my friends do - and that does include disagreements with their 'identity'. They are still my friends though because we have common grounds through other things.
That being said, I do not discriminate between my friends who are gay and my friends who are straight. I treat them exactly the same - and I would hope this is through kindness and mutual trust.
However, on a broader level - ie. legislating against gay marriage/debates in Parliament - I can see how the line between 'disagreement' and 'discrimination' blurs - hence EZ's earlier argument - as MPs' personal opinions are implemented into laws that affect everyone in the community. MPs are put into the very public situation where their personal opinions against the 'politically correct' view are forced to become discriminatory - because their role is to make laws for the community.
That being said, MPs theoretically should always represent the majority view of their constituency, the majority vote should always be upheld and minority groups should always have the right to express their opinions.
Hope that makes sense. :)
Again, a reasonable tone and gentleness is likely to come across better than hitting them on the head with a hammer; it's the same thing as teaching.
As has been said previously by EZ, caution and care is needed when expressing views or even trying to present reasons for a particular view as EZ calmly did. In such a topic, I believe it is very easy to become emotionally charged - hence the unfair, prejudicial comments of the MP re 'bestiality'.
Expressing opinions and the reasons for those opinions is definitely important. But it is equally important to respect the views of others.
Obviously, this is really idealistic. Depending upon the person, it mostly works on a personal level. However, such mutual respect probably will never be achieved on a broad level, because unfortunately there is always one party that crosses the line between respectfully disagreeing and blatant prejudice, and hence the inevitable retaliation that follows.
-
Oh man, I don't know who to vote for next year.
-
On a personal level, I disagree with the gay lifestyle
Why?
-
What do you mean by "gay lifestyle" - I have a gay friend who has exactly the same lifestyle as everyone else does? :(
-
The part I don't understand is, why is this such a big issue in media?
Bernadi used a slippery slope argument, and a valid one at that. Sure, the comparison is a bit ridiculous, that's the point of a slippery slope argument. We all know that the slippery slope argument is fallacious, so dismiss it as such using proper logic. Why the sensational hype?
I will happily compare homosexuality to beastiality or incest or whatever taboo you want to think of. Just because I can make a comparison does not mean I think the two are alike.
The fact that Bernadi quit over this issue is a reflection of the triviality of the Australian Parliament. I would imagine policy makers would debate ideas logically and objectively, duke it out, and make a decision. Instead, they poke a stick at each other until the other side pisses off the most number of journalists.
-
Interestingly my stance on this issue has gone the other way than usual - from supporting amending the definition of marriage to believing civil unions are the most appropriate compromise.
I think comparisons with incest/polygamy and animal marriage are relevant in that they highlight how difficult it is to identify a rationale for why gay marriage specifically should be legalised and not any of these other scenarios. This is problematic given it is the side proposing the change that needs to justify it.
Animal marriage and gay marriage are obviously different in that one involves consensual adults and the other doesn't, but if you are saying that is the rationale for why gay marriage should be legalised and animal marriage not, you are implicitly restricting marriage to between consenting humans. I have trouble seeing how this is any different from restricting marriage to between humans of opposite gender, in both cases you are placing restrictions of some kind on the scope of the word 'marriage'.
The only justification I could muster for specifically legalising gay marriage was that it seemed to be in accordance with prevailing social attitudes. I still don't find this a completely convincing justification and I still struggle with a logical justification for the change...
Until then my gut instinct is that civil unions (or something similar) are the best compromise, provided both civil unions and marriage award identical legal rights. Ultimately, provided there is legal equality, I think semantic equality is not necessary.
I'm open to having any of these ideas challenged though :)
(provided you don't just yell at me and call me a crazy religious bigot)
-
The only justification I could muster for specifically legalising gay marriage was that it seemed to be in accordance with prevailing social attitudes. I still don't find this a completely convincing justification and I still struggle with a logical justification for the change...
Until then my gut instinct is that civil unions (or something similar) are the best compromise, provided both civil unions and marriage award identical legal rights. Ultimately, provided there is legal equality, I think semantic equality is not necessary.
Thank you for posting this. I also share this view.
-
I think comparisons with incest/polygamy and animal marriage are relevant in that they highlight how difficult it is to identify a rationale for why gay marriage specifically should be legalised and not any of these other scenarios. This is problematic given it is the side proposing the change that needs to justify it.
Are you arguing that because the focus is currently on gay marriage and not on, for example, incestuous marriages, that the fight for gay marriage equality is invalid? What I'm getting from your statement is that because the focus is on one type of union to the exclusion of everything else, that fact in itself is enough to dismiss the entire movement.
I do not understand your rationale behind this argument. The fight for racial equality in America and the fight for equal rights for women were not concurrent movements. This would be equivalent to telling the suffragettes "I cannot identify a rationale for why gender equality specifically should be legalised and not equality for blacks as well and therefore I cannot justify granting such rights".
Human rights is not about -BANG everything happens at once-. It is a step by step process.
Animal marriage and gay marriage are obviously different in that one involves consensual adults and the other doesn't, but if you are saying that is the rationale for why gay marriage should be legalised and animal marriage not, you are implicitly restricting marriage to between consenting humans. I have trouble seeing how this is any different from restricting marriage to between humans of opposite gender, in both cases you are placing restrictions of some kind on the scope of the word 'marriage'.
I don't understand this at all - can you elaborate? First you dismiss the comparison with bestiality and then you draw on it as a basis for your argument that "marriage" is being restricted arbitrarily.
The concept of marriage should be restricted based on the ability to consent. Marriage with animals falls under this restriction. I don't see what's so controversial about this. Of course it's restricted to humans, what else did you want to extend it to?
The only justification I could muster for specifically legalising gay marriage was that it seemed to be in accordance with prevailing social attitudes. I still don't find this a completely convincing justification and I still struggle with a logical justification for the change...
You of all people should know that changes in the law often occur in accordance with and in response to "prevailing social attitudes". Why is this such a bad reason?
Until then my gut instinct is that civil unions (or something similar) are the best compromise, provided both civil unions and marriage award identical legal rights. Ultimately, provided there is legal equality, I think semantic equality is not necessary.
While same-sex couples can apply for recognition as a de facto relationship (which will grant the same rights as those granted to a marriage), the process itself is still different. For one, same-sex couples (and any de facto couple) have a set of criteria which they must match in order to prove that they are, in fact, in a de facto relationship (which IIRC includes proving that you have lived together for 2 years, don't quote me on this though I haven't studied family law I just have friends in de facto relationships)
Compare this to a couple of roommates who decide to sign a certificate at the registry so that they can get extra Centrelink benefits. Boom, done. No "proof" necessary.
I do not see this as legal equality.
-
Bernadi used a slippery slope argument, and a valid one at that. Sure, the comparison is a bit ridiculous, that's the point of a slippery slope argument. We all know that the slippery slope argument is fallacious, so dismiss it as such using proper logic. Why the sensational hype?
A slippery slope argument is a fallacy, how can it be valid?
I will happily compare homosexuality to beastiality or incest or whatever taboo you want to think of. Just because I can make a comparison does not mean I think the two are alike.
Bestiality is a taboo because in the process you often hurt innocent animals which do not have the mental capacity to understand what is going on and to consent. Gay marriage is a taboo because unfortunately there are still people out there who are ingrained in their conservative, traditional ways, and therefore react negatively when something challenges those ways (e.g. seeing two men kissing).
And these people will equate the sick feeling they get when an animal suffers with the sick feeling they get because they can't accept a situation outside of their "only opposite sex people can love each other!!!" paradigm. But there is a massive difference between the two, and I'm glad that someone as stupid as Bernadi who could not recognise that is copping flack for his idiocy.
-
On a personal level, I disagree with the gay lifestyle
Why?
Ninatron - I think what aabattery said was benign. What I think aabattery meant that - PERSONALLY - he can't help but feel uncomfortable with homosexuality, that's innate to him. It would be good if he could change his view, but effectively it does not really matter. It doesn't matter what one thinks, it only matters how one acts based on what one thinks.
So aabattery is saying, OK he feels uncomfortable with homosexuality. However, he acknowledges that homosexuality should not be discriminated against. The end product is very similar - a person who is ok with homosexuality and says they shouldn't be discriminated, and a person who is uncomfortable but tolerant of homosexuality and says they shouldn't be discriminated against...would perform very similar actions.
Aabattery - this is what you meant right?
-
I'll clarify the rest of my points when I get a bit more time but in relation to this:
The concept of marriage should be restricted based on the ability to consent. Marriage with animals falls under this restriction. I don't see what's so controversial about this. Of course it's restricted to humans, what else did you want to extend it to?
My point is that why should marriage be restricted to consenting humans? Aren't you just choosing who you exclude from the institution of marriage based on your opinion on how it should be defined? And isn't this similar to those who choose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples? What is the reason why your line in the sane should be accepted over someone else's?
-
The only justification I could muster for specifically legalising gay marriage was that it seemed to be in accordance with prevailing social attitudes. I still don't find this a completely convincing justification and I still struggle with a logical justification for the change...
Why don't you find this convincing? The legal (and current) definition of marriage is also one arbitrarily defined based on past societal attitudes, unless you believe in the biblical interpretation of it.
-
I'll clarify the rest of my points when I get a bit more time but in relation to this:
The concept of marriage should be restricted based on the ability to consent. Marriage with animals falls under this restriction. I don't see what's so controversial about this. Of course it's restricted to humans, what else did you want to extend it to?
My point is that why should marriage be restricted to consenting humans? Aren't you just choosing who you exclude from the institution of marriage based on your opinion on how it should be defined? And isn't this similar to those who choose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples? What is the reason why your line in the sane should be accepted over someone else's?
I really don't understand what you are trying to argue here. What species are you suggesting we extend it to?
Marriage is restricted to humans because all laws are restricted to humans? Isn't this kind of self-evident?
-
On a personal level, I disagree with the gay lifestyle
Why?
Ninatron - I think what aabattery said was benign.
Yes, I realise that. I was merely curious as to what exactly it is about a homosexual lifestyle that is so different from that of a heterosexual couple. But that is irrelevant to this thread anyway. I guess I was just flabbergasted.
-
I'll clarify the rest of my points when I get a bit more time but in relation to this:
The concept of marriage should be restricted based on the ability to consent. Marriage with animals falls under this restriction. I don't see what's so controversial about this. Of course it's restricted to humans, what else did you want to extend it to?
My point is that why should marriage be restricted to consenting humans? Aren't you just choosing who you exclude from the institution of marriage based on your opinion on how it should be defined? And isn't this similar to those who choose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples? What is the reason why your line in the sane should be accepted over someone else's?
I really don't understand what you are trying to argue here. What species are you suggesting we extend it to?
Marriage is restricted to humans because all laws are restricted to humans? Isn't this kind of self-evident?
It's a rather abstract (and to me arbitrary/semantics) argument. Anti gay marriage advocates are saying that marriage is between a man and a woman and that's how it is defined and how it should be. People who support legalizing gay marriage are saying that marriage is between any consenting adults and that's how it should be. There's no intrinsic reason for why their definition is better, since there is no absolute correct answer.
I think it's kinda arbitrary/semantics based since it doesn't justify why the status quo is correct and it sidesteps..well..everything.
THATS JUST MY TAKE ON IT I COULD BE WRONG WHO KNOWS
Yes, I realise that. I am merely curious as to what exactly it is about a homosexual lifestyle that is so different from that of a heterosexual couple.
Being homosexual. I think it was just badly phrased
-
I'll clarify the rest of my points when I get a bit more time but in relation to this:
The concept of marriage should be restricted based on the ability to consent. Marriage with animals falls under this restriction. I don't see what's so controversial about this. Of course it's restricted to humans, what else did you want to extend it to?
My point is that why should marriage be restricted to consenting humans? Aren't you just choosing who you exclude from the institution of marriage based on your opinion on how it should be defined? And isn't this similar to those who choose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples? What is the reason why your line in the sane should be accepted over someone else's?
I really don't understand what you are trying to argue here. What species are you suggesting we extend it to?
Marriage is restricted to humans because all laws are restricted to humans? Isn't this kind of self-evident?
It's a rather abstract (and to me arbitrary/semantics) argument. Anti gay marriage advocates are saying that marriage is between a man and a woman and that's how it is defined and how it should be. People who support legalizing gay marriage are saying that marriage is between any consenting adults and that's how it should be. There's no intrinsic reason for why their definition is better, since there is no absolute correct answer.
I think it's kinda arbitrary/semantics based since it doesn't justify why the status quo is correct and it sidesteps..well..everything.
THATS JUST MY TAKE ON IT I COULD BE WRONG WHO KNOWS
I'd agree here. In response to that lynt, I think my analysis a few pages ago is probably reason enough, just sayin'.
Although re: Nina, I guess it probably is worth pointing out that laws are not just relating to humans; implicitly we subjugate animals to laws as well when the state endorses the construction of zoos, etc. If we're going to use consent as the principle here as well, it might also be worth considering - say an animal identified a human being as a potential mate and (as animals are prone to doing?) singled it out as its permanent 'partner', and in the process the human being also was attracted to the animal, would you allow them to get married as well? I know it's a bit of a bizarre hypothetical example, but given the fact that there have been cases of animals trying to single out humans to have sex with, I think it's probably (haha, maybe just tangentially...) worth considering here.
-
I disagree with your views, EvangelionZeta.
Every law we have ever dealt with is about humans. You are basically arguing:
"Why should marriage be restricted to humans only?"
"Why should possession of objects be restricted to humans only?"
"Why should a driver's licence be restricted to humans only?"
"Why should the jury be restricted to humans only?"
And so on, so forth.
I will give you a reason why all of these laws are restricted to humans only and why even considering animals in this situation would be perverse:
On the grand scheme of things, adults have the most rights, children have the second most rights and animals have the third most rights. Animals are inferior to human children, so unless you're suggesting that we legalise everything for children and make it legal to marry children, then I don't see how animal marriage can even be considered. Homosexual ADULTS are more superior, more knowledgeable and more mature than animals/children/pieces of bacteria etc.
And as ninatron pointed out, laws come bit by bit. You can't just say that just because it should be illegal for the most extreme example to happen, then it should be illegal for the least extreme. You seem like the sort of person who would talk about the dangers of heroin in a debate against the legalisation of marijuana. It's just not relevant.
edit: Okay, maybe not every law is about humans, just like not every law concerns adults only (children still have rights too). But you can't expect an animal to have the same amount of rights as a human adult. Animals are inferior to humans. Gay people are equal with straight people. There is a difference.
-
Err Spesh, EZ wasn't arguing that, he was just chucking out a hypothetical.
-
Err Spesh, EZ wasn't arguing that, he was just chucking out a hypothetical.
I was wondering about that because his post on page 2 seemed to hold the complete opposite view...
-
Every law we have ever dealt with is about humans. You are basically arguing:
"Why should marriage be restricted to humans only?"
"Why should possession of objects be restricted to humans only?"
"Why should a driver's licence be restricted to humans only?"
"Why should the jury be restricted to humans only?"
Easy for these ones -
1. That's the point of this discussion - why SHOULD it be restricted to humans only?
2. Fair point - why do we only grant humans rights to possessions? What about animals that like to hoarde things up - do we give them rights too? I think this is actually worth thinking about.
3. Because animals can't drive, duh.
4. Because animals can't contribute to a jury's decision due to a lack of intellectual capacity.
But seriously, not that I am at all suggesting we bring animals into play with the first two, but I think we should very well ask - why DON'T animals get the same rights there?
On the grand scheme of things, adults have the most rights, children have the second most rights and animals have the third most rights. Animals are inferior to human children, so unless you're suggesting that we legalise everything for children and make it legal to marry children, then I don't see how animal marriage can even be considered. Homosexual ADULTS are more superior, more knowledgeable and more mature than animals/children/pieces of bacteria etc.
That's all assertion - why are adults>children>animals?
But yes, all in all I'm not actually arguing for these things, just trying to provoke some discussion as to why we might hold these sorts of views. I think it's important to question all of our assumptions in situations like this!
-
But seriously, not that I am at all suggesting we bring animals into play with the first two, but I think we should very well ask - why DON'T animals get the same rights there?
On the grand scheme of things, adults have the most rights, children have the second most rights and animals have the third most rights. Animals are inferior to human children, so unless you're suggesting that we legalise everything for children and make it legal to marry children, then I don't see how animal marriage can even be considered. Homosexual ADULTS are more superior, more knowledgeable and more mature than animals/children/pieces of bacteria etc.
That's all assertion - why are adults>children>animals?
I think capacity (as in your rebuttal to number 4) is the most obvious argument to me. Probably for the adults/children thing as well, adults have the full capacity to make their own decisions etc. Most do, anyway. Whilst some children may have an equal to or greater capacity than many adults it would be impossible to implement anything other than blanket legislation. I think where children's rights are restricted it's more for their own protection. Eg. People who aren't even teenagers yet could be forced into work other than their paper rounds, so in taking away a child's right to work, the majority of children are being protected from what they can't protect themselves from.
Same goes for animal. Marriage is no longer a survival mechanism and doesn't exist for procreation. An animal identifying a human as a potential mate is probably wired wrong. In this case, an animal's instincts have been skewed, with their sole intention being procreation unless the animal is a dolphin. The human that would want a relationship with an animal (lol what are the chances that an animal being attracted to a person ends up being attracted to one wanting it back) would be doing so for some perverse sexual pleasure. I don't think you could argue that it wouldn't be sexual for a human that is fully mentally capable and sane. To draw an analogy from humans - perhaps an inappropriate one - an animal/human r/ship would be the equivalent of a man/woman on LSD thinking one of their friends was their life partner. Assuming the friend knew they were on acid I think it would probably be considered rape - socially if not in the legal sense - to have sex with the person on drugs.
A homosex. couple wanting to get married are fully capable of their own decisions and under control of their mental faculties. Denying them something because of trivial difference is discriminatory.
-
If we're going to use consent as the principle here as well, it might also be worth considering - say an animal identified a human being as a potential mate and (as animals are prone to doing?) singled it out as its permanent 'partner', and in the process the human being also was attracted to the animal, would you allow them to get married as well? I know it's a bit of a bizarre hypothetical example, but given the fact that there have been cases of animals trying to single out humans to have sex with, I think it's probably (haha, maybe just tangentially...) worth considering here.
Is the animal capable of understanding the concept of a marriage certificate, of understanding all the rights and responsibilities that come with the issuing of such a certificate, and of actually signing it and understanding what that action of signing it entails? If so, then sure, let them marry.
It's an interesting academic argument but has next to no practical application.
Marriage is restricted to humans because all laws are restricted to humans. You wouldn't prosecute a cat by subjecting it to a murder trial with a jury of its peers for killing a bird, would you?
-
If we're going to use consent as the principle here as well, it might also be worth considering - say an animal identified a human being as a potential mate and (as animals are prone to doing?) singled it out as its permanent 'partner', and in the process the human being also was attracted to the animal, would you allow them to get married as well? I know it's a bit of a bizarre hypothetical example, but given the fact that there have been cases of animals trying to single out humans to have sex with, I think it's probably (haha, maybe just tangentially...) worth considering here.
Is the animal capable of understanding the concept of a marriage certificate, of understanding all the rights and responsibilities that come with the issuing of such a certificate, and of actually signing it and understanding what that action of signing it entails? If so, then sure, let them marry.
It's an interesting academic argument but has next to no practical application.
Marriage is restricted to humans because all laws are restricted to humans. You wouldn't prosecute a cat by subjecting it to a murder trial with a jury of its peers for killing a bird, would you?
Most adorable murder trial ever.
-
I laughed for a moderate time at those two comments.
-
(http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/sbo0425l.jpg)
-
I simply cannot respect people who do not want homosexuals to have equal marriage rights. It says to me one of 3 things:
1) You're uneducated.
2) You're a bigot.
3) Both.
-
Cory Bernardi isn't the only evil person in parliament: http://clementineford.tumblr.com/post/31909708502
-
If we're going to use consent as the principle here as well, it might also be worth considering - say an animal identified a human being as a potential mate and (as animals are prone to doing?) singled it out as its permanent 'partner', and in the process the human being also was attracted to the animal, would you allow them to get married as well? I know it's a bit of a bizarre hypothetical example, but given the fact that there have been cases of animals trying to single out humans to have sex with, I think it's probably (haha, maybe just tangentially...) worth considering here.
Is the animal capable of understanding the concept of a marriage certificate, of understanding all the rights and responsibilities that come with the issuing of such a certificate, and of actually signing it and understanding what that action of signing it entails? If so, then sure, let them marry.
It's an interesting academic argument but has next to no practical application.
Marriage is restricted to humans because all laws are restricted to humans. You wouldn't prosecute a cat by subjecting it to a murder trial with a jury of its peers for killing a bird, would you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKJmtMbfOsw&feature=player_detailpage#t=400s
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0S642NtHtE I couldn't resist.
-
Cory Bernardi isn't the only evil person in parliament: http://clementineford.tumblr.com/post/31909708502
Yep
I remain unconvinced that it is unjust discrimination to foster stable, biological parenting as a social norm.
It disconnects from the issue that male-to-female married relationships are different from other kinds of relationships, sexual or non-sexual, and it disconnects from the issue that marriage deserves its unique legal and cultural status because it is based on real differences between marriage and other relationships.
I reject the suggestion of marriage equality. Marriage equality has been a slogan; it has been a campaign.
Retention of the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is also about protecting the rights of the silent majority ... I doubt that most people who are pushing these amendments are overly religious or even intend on staying in a monogamous relationship, which begs the question: why do they want to get 'married'? The chattering classes do not want to concede that, by amending the Marriage Act, they are in fact denying the rights of the silent majority who want to uphold the sanctity and true meaning of marriage and who want to keep some tradition going in a world that seems to be forever throwing out the old and bringing in the new ... Same-sex marriage is a 10th order issue.
I especially love the "I doubt that most people who are pushing these amendments are overly religious or even intend on staying in a monogamous relationship, which begs the question: why do they want to get 'married'?"... quality politics
-
Holy crap, just read the Hansard in the least link you gave me. That woman is a bigot. "we have better things to do than to argue about gay marriage." Yeah, all the more reason to just pass the damn bill and move on. "the silent majority" blah blah. Oh yeah, that woman should put her neck where her mouth is and call for a referendum if she thinks the majority are against gay marriage. that said I would hope that the Australian population would have more sense than this imbecile.
Question though. Am I right in saying that marriage does not need to be validated by a priest out any other religious figure? If this is the case then this woman's argument regarding churches bring forced to renounce their values and conduct homosexual marriages is a moot point.
-
I don't think it's fair to call Senator Bernardi stupid, in my eyes, he made a valid point.
We have to remember that marriage is an arbitrary concept, it's not something which is natural, it is a man-made concept. Thus, by nature, marriage is what we, ourselves, define it to be. Some will define marriage as a union between a man and a woman who are not related, a union between two consenting people who are not related, a union between n consenting people...etc. So this links back to aabatery's argument, that disagreement and discrimination are two different things.
Someone who defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman does not necessarily discriminate against those who are gay. For example, one of my teachers last year (we had this debate in class), believed that a union between a man and a woman should be called marriage and a union between two of the same gender should be called a civil union. He agrees that under law, they should be given the same rights, but they should be called different things. Now, I don't think that's discriminatory, because he has clearly stated, that they should be given the same rights, he might just have a different definition of marriage to some others, who then might label him as a bigot, while he's really not.
Anecdote aside, I think this raises three views to the situation:
1) Marriage is between a man and a woman who are not related...etc. anything else should be called something different
2) Marriage is between any number of consenting people (or even animals), regardless of other factors
3) Those who are in between
The truth, in my opinion, is that most people fall into those who are in between and the the issue with that is, there's obviously SOMETHING which has made them move from group (1) closer to group (2). What Senator Bernardi is merely saying is that this could be an issue because that means that OTHER THINGS could possibly move them even MORE closer to group (2) - leading to things such as incest and marriage to animals...etc.
That doesn't necessarily make him a bigot, nor does that make him stupid, he hasn't said anything that is clearly discriminatory, he merely disagrees with those who wish to change the definition of marriage and he has every right to, especially in a country where we should be allowed to express our honest views.
-
We have to remember that marriage is an arbitrary concept
...
Thus, by nature, marriage is what we, ourselves, define it to be.
And by excluding homosexuals from it, you are a bigot. End of story.
believed that a union between a man and a woman should be called marriage and a union between two of the same gender should be called a civil union
Yes, that's called treating homosexuals as 2nd class citizens. "You want to get married? Oh no you can't. Your love is different. It's not on the same level of heterosexuals. You'll just have to be happy with a civil union. Only heterosexual couples get marriages."
Equal marriage rights is about treating homosexuals as PEOPLE rather than second-class citizens.
-
union between a man and a woman should be called marriage and a union between two of the same gender should be called a civil union. He agrees that under law, they should be given the same rights, but they should be called different things. Now, I don't think that's discriminatory, because he has clearly stated, that they should be given the same rights
Separate but Equal eh?
-
Holy crap, just read the Hansard in the least link you gave me. That woman is a bigot. "we have better things to do than to argue about gay marriage." Yeah, all the more reason to just pass the damn bill and move on. "the silent majority" blah blah. Oh yeah, that woman should put her neck where her mouth is and call for a referendum if she thinks the majority are against gay marriage. that said I would hope that the Australian population would have more sense than this imbecile.
Question though. Am I right in saying that marriage does not need to be validated by a priest out any other religious figure? If this is the case then this woman's argument regarding churches bring forced to renounce their values and conduct homosexual marriages is a moot point.
She should put her neck where her mouth is. It wouldn't be with a referendum though Thush - that's for changing the Constitution.
And yeah you're right in saying that. I love the sanctity of marriage argument. Just a few months ago my bogan Dad got married by a civil celebrant. There was a certain irony when she (the celebrant) said "...to the exclusion of all others, entered into for life" - they'd both broken that vow before LOL.
-
Yes, that's called treating homosexuals as 2nd class citizens. "You want to get married? Oh no you can't. Your love is different. It's not on the same level of heterosexuals. You'll just have to be happy with a civil union. Only heterosexual couples get marriages."
Equal marriage rights is about treating homosexuals as PEOPLE rather than second-class citizens.
I don't think that's the case, it's not a segregation into first class and second class, like an apartheid, it's not even saying that their "love" is different to hetrosexual "love". It's a matter of definition. So rather than calling it "marriage" and "civil union", how about we just call them "same sex unions" and "opposite sex unions" - we're not saying that saying that "same sex unions" are above "opposite sex unions" - we are just saying that they are two different things. I think it's exactly the same, but just calling "opposite sex unions" marriage for convenience more than anything else.
-
Two things;
Firstly, I don't understand the argument where "Homosexuals = worse parents then heterosexuals". Homosexuals would be forced to adopt, which means they'd be taking kids from orphanages etc... and homosexual parents are most certainly better then growing up in an orphanage. So I think the point is moot? Unless we're talking about IVF or something with a woman carrying a homosexual couples child, which is something that is imo more private and the state can't have much to do with, which renders this whole argument rather useless in my opinion. The day when we have enough heterosexual couples to care after every child in the world, is the day homosexual parents would (ignoring IVF in this instance) be unable to obtain children, so as far as I'm concerned they present a perfectly good solution to todays problems.
On the next issue @Paul, the slippery slope argument is inherently flawed because we draw the line at *consenting adults*. That is not an optional line people can take, it is immoral to have relations with children/animals because they cannot legally consent. Should polygamy be legal? Probably, in my opinion, yes. For as long as marriage is offered by the state, the state has no right to discriminate on the consenting adults it allows to marry. Churches, Synagogues, Mosques - they are private institutions and it is for those private institutions to decide on who they choose to marry or not - an orthodox synagogue will not marry a jew and a non-jew, and it is nobodys business (except for its constituents) to tell them that they should. However, for so long as the government offers marriage to citizens, it must do so to all citizens because the government CANNOT discriminate - it, by definition, should be impartial and uphold the rights of every citizen, irrespective of race, religion or gender.
-
Well... a union is the same thing.
Edit: If we insist on labeling irrelevant differences whilst providing the same legal rights, should we also separate the current definition of marriage into a classification system, Paul? We could have "interracial unions" and "same-colour unions". We wouldn't say that "same-colour unions" are above "interracial unions" - we would just say that they are two different things. But maybe we could call "same-colour unions" marriage for more convenience.
-
Well... a union is the same thing.
Discrimination by name is still discrimination.
Separate but equal is a flawed ideology. See: Apartheid South Africa for an example :P.
-
Firstly, I don't understand the argument where "Homosexuals = worse parents then heterosexuals". Homosexuals would be forced to adopt, which means they'd be taking kids from orphanages etc... and homosexual parents are most certainly better then growing up in an orphanage. So I think the point is moot? Unless we're talking about IVF or something with a woman carrying a homosexual couples child, which is something that is imo more private and the state can't have much to do with, which renders this whole argument rather useless in my opinion. The day when we have enough heterosexual couples to care after every child in the world, is the day homosexual parents would (ignoring IVF in this instance) be unable to obtain children, so as far as I'm concerned they present a perfectly good solution to todays problems.
I fully agree with this point, sexuality has nothing to do with how well someone can raise a child.
On the next issue @Paul, the slippery slope argument is inherently flawed because we draw the line at *consenting adults*. That is not an optional line people can take, it is immoral to have relations with children/animals because they cannot legally consent. Should polygamy be legal? Probably, in my opinion, yes. For as long as marriage is offered by the state, the state has no right to discriminate on the consenting adults it allows to marry. Churches, Synagogues, Mosques - they are private institutions and it is for those private institutions to decide on who they choose to marry or not - an orthodox synagogue will not marry a jew and a non-jew, and it is nobodys business (except for its constituents) to tell them that they should. However, for so long as the government offers marriage to citizens, it must do so to all citizens because the government CANNOT discriminate - it, by definition, should be impartial and uphold the rights of every citizen, irrespective of race, religion or gender.
Yes, the line can be drawn at "consenting adults" but what happens when a brother wants to marry a sister and they both consent? Should that be allowed?
Either way, you bring up a good point, "as long as government offers marriage to citizens". One of the ways in which this can be resolved is for the state to not have marriages in the law and just have "unions" - marriage should be relegated to private institutions such as churches...etc. because of the historical and religious value placed on the term "marriage" - how does that sound to you? :)
See: Apartheid South Africa for an example :P.
I responded to the issue of apartheid - apartheid = white people superior to black people - the notion of superiority is what is different here.
-
it's not even saying that their "love" is different to hetrosexual "love"
we are just saying that they are two different things.
does not compute
-
Well... a union is the same thing.
Discrimination by name is still discrimination.
Separate but equal is a flawed ideology. See: Apartheid South Africa for an example :P.
Within context, that quote was directed at Paul saying we should have two different unions. I was meaning, what's the point in having different ones when we could just call them both a union or a marriage.
Makes more sense after my Edit.
Well... a union is the same thing.
Edit: If we insist on labeling irrelevant differences whilst providing the same legal rights, should we also separate the current definition of marriage into a classification system, Paul? We could have "interracial unions" and "same-colour unions". We wouldn't say that "same-colour unions" are above "interracial unions" - we would just say that they are two different things. But maybe we could call "same-colour unions" marriage for more convenience.
-
Yes, the line can be drawn at "consenting adults" but what happens when a brother wants to marry a sister and they both consent? Should that be allowed?
Tangent, but do you have a reason why not, assuming they don't have kids?
marriage should be relegated to private institutions such as churches...etc. because of the historical and religious value placed on the term "marriage" - how does that sound to you?
Isn't this just sanctioning discrimination?
"yes we have equal unions, but we also have a special type of commitment that only the heterosexuals can get"
-
Firstly, I don't understand the argument where "Homosexuals = worse parents then heterosexuals". Homosexuals would be forced to adopt, which means they'd be taking kids from orphanages etc... and homosexual parents are most certainly better then growing up in an orphanage. So I think the point is moot? Unless we're talking about IVF or something with a woman carrying a homosexual couples child, which is something that is imo more private and the state can't have much to do with, which renders this whole argument rather useless in my opinion. The day when we have enough heterosexual couples to care after every child in the world, is the day homosexual parents would (ignoring IVF in this instance) be unable to obtain children, so as far as I'm concerned they present a perfectly good solution to todays problems.
I fully agree with this point, sexuality has nothing to do with how well someone can raise a child.
On the next issue @Paul, the slippery slope argument is inherently flawed because we draw the line at *consenting adults*. That is not an optional line people can take, it is immoral to have relations with children/animals because they cannot legally consent. Should polygamy be legal? Probably, in my opinion, yes. For as long as marriage is offered by the state, the state has no right to discriminate on the consenting adults it allows to marry. Churches, Synagogues, Mosques - they are private institutions and it is for those private institutions to decide on who they choose to marry or not - an orthodox synagogue will not marry a jew and a non-jew, and it is nobodys business (except for its constituents) to tell them that they should. However, for so long as the government offers marriage to citizens, it must do so to all citizens because the government CANNOT discriminate - it, by definition, should be impartial and uphold the rights of every citizen, irrespective of race, religion or gender.
Yes, the line can be drawn at "consenting adults" but what happens when a brother wants to marry a sister and they both consent? Should that be allowed?
Either way, you bring up a good point, "as long as government offers marriage to citizens". One of the ways in which this can be resolved is for the state to not have marriages in the law and just have "unions" - marriage should be relegated to private institutions such as churches...etc. because of the historical and religious value placed on the term "marriage" - how does that sound to you? :)
See: Apartheid South Africa for an example :P.
I responded to the issue of apartheid - apartheid = white people superior to black people - the notion of superiority is what is different here.
If a brother wants to marry a sister, and they both consent, then a legitimate reason to not allow them to marry is the much higher risk of their children having genetic defects... although that same logic could be applied to a heterosexual couple, and would be deemed immoral, so I don't know. But this is a much more contentious area, in which I don't think we as a society are even willing to consider yet. Honestly, as much as it is repulsive, if they're both 18, I can't think of a good reason why we should stop them from being married - I just don't see it as something society would (or ever should) consider moral... however with that said, I don't think society should be infringing on their civil rights to get married anyway. Tough proposition.
EDIT: (enwiabe posted a good reason not to, thanks bro, I agree with him on this, so ignore that lol).
But ultimately, gay marriage is simpler, and Paul whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that the government should only offer civil unions, it is both impractical and comes with its own problems. Marriage is no longer simply something for religious people, it is also an entirely secular institution that is part of society, whether we like it or not. As such, we would never get support for not allowing the government to marry people, and I don't personally think we should (although that's not relevant to my argument).
So with that said, my point is that we've come to the realization where we aren't going to stop the government providing marriage, in which case we are presented with two options: Allow gay marriage, or make the government a body which actively discriminates against homosexuals by not providing them with marriage. I think given the options we are provided with, the only moral thing we can do is to legalize gay marriage.
Well... a union is the same thing.
Discrimination by name is still discrimination.
Separate but equal is a flawed ideology. See: Apartheid South Africa for an example :P.
Within context, that quote was directed at Paul saying we should have two different unions. I was meaning, what's the point in having different ones when we could just call them both a union or a marriage.
Makes more sense after my Edit.
Well... a union is the same thing.
Edit: If we insist on labeling irrelevant differences whilst providing the same legal rights, should we also separate the current definition of marriage into a classification system, Paul? We could have "interracial unions" and "same-colour unions". We wouldn't say that "same-colour unions" are above "interracial unions" - we would just say that they are two different things. But maybe we could call "same-colour unions" marriage for more convenience.
Oops sorry, my bad then.
-
Tangent, but do you have a reason why not, assuming they don't have kids?
Well, my reason for being anti-incest is because of the whole having kids issue - that their chances of having a genetic disease is X times higher than non-incest. Something like that, I did it last semester in Molecular Biology/Genetics but I honestly don't remember the exact facts.
But kids aside - there might be those who abuse the system. As a crude example, person A wants to benefit from family welfare (which pays two INDIVIDUALS differently to a COUPLE - couple gets more) but he can't exactly "fake" a marraige with an outsider because if they divorce, he would have to deal with issues such as splitting their assets. So person A decides to marry his sister, B, instead, so they both can benefit from the family welfare payment system and they both trust eachother enough that when they "divorce" they won't run into issues.
Isn't this just sanctioning discrimination?
"yes we have equal unions, but we also have a special type of commitment that only the heterosexuals can get"
I think under the law, we should have one union (I am pro gay marriage - if there were a referendum I would vote yes), but I also think that churches...etc. should be able to do whatever the hell they want and hence, "marry" whom they please...etc.
Just like how the orthodox church only marries two people of a certain religion or something or rather, I can't remember, but it's discriminatory...etc.
-
Should just abolish marriage.
-
Honestly, as much as it is repulsive, if they're both 18, I can't think of a good reason why we should stop them from being married - I just don't see it as something society would (or ever should) consider moral... however with that said, I don't think society should be infringing on their civil rights to get married anyway. Tough proposition.
Yeah, "morality" seems to change quickly these days, remember that not that long ago, gay marriages were repulsive as well and most wouldn't consider it moral. But these days, most, including us, are accepting of gay marriages and don't find anything repulsive about them. But yeah, that's something to consider as well.
Should just abolish marriage.
Yes, under the law, just have unions! sounds good!
-
Abolish marriage simply because politicians are too homophobic and discriminatory to allow same-sex marriage? Sounds like a good idea...
-
I don't think it's fair to call Senator Bernardi stupid, in my eyes, he made a valid point.
We have to remember that marriage is an arbitrary concept, it's not something which is natural, it is a man-made concept. Thus, by nature, marriage is what we, ourselves, define it to be. Some will define marriage as a union between a man and a woman who are not related, a union between two consenting people who are not related, a union between n consenting people...etc. So this links back to aabatery's argument, that disagreement and discrimination are two different things.
Someone who defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman does not necessarily discriminate against those who are gay. For example, one of my teachers last year (we had this debate in class), believed that a union between a man and a woman should be called marriage and a union between two of the same gender should be called a civil union. He agrees that under law, they should be given the same rights, but they should be called different things. Now, I don't think that's discriminatory, because he has clearly stated, that they should be given the same rights, he might just have a different definition of marriage to some others, who then might label him as a bigot, while he's really not.
Anecdote aside, I think this raises three views to the situation:
1) Marriage is between a man and a woman who are not related...etc. anything else should be called something different
2) Marriage is between any number of consenting people (or even animals), regardless of other factors
3) Those who are in between
The truth, in my opinion, is that most people fall into those who are in between and the the issue with that is, there's obviously SOMETHING which has made them move from group (1) closer to group (2). What Senator Bernardi is merely saying is that this could be an issue because that means that OTHER THINGS could possibly move them even MORE closer to group (2) - leading to things such as incest and marriage to animals...etc.
That doesn't necessarily make him a bigot, nor does that make him stupid, he hasn't said anything that is clearly discriminatory, he merely disagrees with those who wish to change the definition of marriage and he has every right to, especially in a country where we should be allowed to express our honest views.
Paul - you forget that 'marriage' and 'civil union' will have connotations associated with them. And unfortunately if we adopted your model, given that 'civil union' is a new and...somewhat contrived term...there will be negative connotations associated with 'civil union.' This means that, unlike what you were assuming, assigning two different terms, one of which is already in use for 'a union between a man and a woman,' will never result in two terms with equal connotations.
And contriving another term for homosexual marriage, simply because bigots cannot accept gay marriage, is itself bigotry. Because it means sth along the lines of "oh no no no we can't call homosexual unions marriage because marriage is meant to be holy, pure, you can have a 'civil union' but marriage is just not for you"
-
Abolish marriage simply because politicians are too homophobic and discriminatory to allow same-sex marriage? Sounds like a good idea...
Well if it were one or the other I'd take no marriage. I just think marriage is a concept is silly. "I love you so much I'm willing to go through a shit load of legal hassle if we ever want to break up."
-
Incest laws are to protect the majority, much like age of consent.
It's very possible that a brother and sister could have a consenting loving relationship that hurts nobody. More often than not, however, incestuous relationships are the result of psychological or physical or emotional abuse. Consent is not objectively given and it's impossible to delineate it from years of extenuating circumstances. I'd say in the case of father-daughter it is almost impossible for the daughter to be giving proper consent given the position of power of the father.
And so, just like it is very possible that a 15-year-old girl is sexually mature enough to want to have sex with a 22 year old male, in most cases it isn't. And so we choose an age which we deem socially appropriate to reduce as much harm as possible. That's why it varies everywhere in the world. It does tell you something though that it is 16-18 in most developed countries. Nonetheless, it is still difficult to nail down such a dicey moral quandary.
Similarly, incest laws are to protect the vulnerable and silently suffering. In this case, the possibilities for abuse far outweigh the cases where it occurs positively and so this is a law to minimise harm.
-
That's an interesting and absolutely valid take on that point enwiabe. However, I'd like to raise the suggestion of incestuous relationships between brothers and sisters, where there would not be such a power imbalance?
-
That's an interesting and absolutely valid take on that point enwiabe. However, I'd like to raise the suggestion of incestuous relationships between brothers and sisters, where there would not be such a power imbalance?
I'd say an older brother is in a position of power. And like I said, it's murky. I don't doubt that some could be occurring abuse-free, but it's just impossible to legislate for it and it's better to protect the vulnerable in this instance.
-
That's an interesting and absolutely valid take on that point enwiabe. However, I'd like to raise the suggestion of incestuous relationships between brothers and sisters, where there would not be such a power imbalance?
I'd say an older brother is in a position of power. And like I said, it's murky. I don't doubt that some could be occurring abuse-free, but it's just impossible to legislate for it and it's better to protect the vulnerable in this instance.
Point taken.
-
Well, my reason for being anti-incest is because of the whole having kids issue - that their chances of having a genetic disease is X times higher than non-incest. Something like that, I did it last semester in Molecular Biology/Genetics but I honestly don't remember the exact facts.
So are you also against two people with genetic diseases getting married? If not, why not?
But kids aside - there might be those who abuse the system. As a crude example, person A wants to benefit from family welfare (which pays two INDIVIDUALS differently to a COUPLE - couple gets more) but he can't exactly "fake" a marraige with an outsider because if they divorce, he would have to deal with issues such as splitting their assets. So person A decides to marry his sister, B, instead, so they both can benefit from the family welfare payment system and they both trust eachother enough that when they "divorce" they won't run into issues.
You realise this already happens? University students have resorted to this to get more Centrelink benefits.
-
But kids aside - there might be those who abuse the system. As a crude example, person A wants to benefit from family welfare (which pays two INDIVIDUALS differently to a COUPLE - couple gets more) but he can't exactly "fake" a marraige with an outsider because if they divorce, he would have to deal with issues such as splitting their assets. So person A decides to marry his sister, B, instead, so they both can benefit from the family welfare payment system and they both trust eachother enough that when they "divorce" they won't run into issues.
You realise this already happens? University students have resorted to this to get more Centrelink benefits.
I predict a new series of "Underbelly"....
-
So are you also against two people with genetic diseases getting married? If not, why not?
No, I'm not, because by Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium, unless we make a change, we won't be increasing the likelihood of a particular allele in our society. Thus, since incest is currently illegal, if we suddenly legalise it, there will start to be a quick number of incestous marriages in succession and as a result, homozygous goes up, hetrozygous goes down. Thus, any genetic disease which is recessive will increase.
-
Thus, since incest is currently illegal, if we suddenly legalise it, there will start to be a quick number of incestous marriages in succession
<citation needed>
-
Her point was that having people with genetic diseases marry and have kids will increase the frequency of disease in the population, which is functionally similar to an inbreeding effect increasing disease
-
Also nice try with the medical jargon Paul but your argument is still illogical. Since when is marriage a precursor to having kids?
Most people don't let marriage get in the way of having a sex life. If people are going to have incestuous, unprotected sex, they're going to do it anyway regardless of whether incestuous marriage is legalised or not.
-
Her point was that having people with genetic diseases marry and have kids will increase the frequency of disease in the population, which is functionally similar to an inbreeding effect increasing disease
Yeah, but people with genetic diseases are already marrying and having kids, so if that stays as is, the allele frequencies won't change - unless somehow a massive increase of people with genetic illnesses having kids suddenly happens.
Anyways, I'm not sure about you, but I don't think it's good to be increasing the frequency of genetic illness, like, I know it's a touchy issue, but it's not just all about rights - there's issues of the welfare of society at stake as well, not to mention that healthcare is a limited resource, thus, there should be some measure to reduce the incidence of disease in the first place...etc.
I'm not saying that we should infringe on rights, but I'm just saying it's not a good idea to "just allow" the frequencies of genetic illnesses to increase. Like, there has to be some sort of balance there.
Also nice try with the medical jargon Paul but your argument is still illogical. Since when is marriage a precursor to having kids?
Most people don't let marriage get in the way of having a sex life. If people are going to have incestuous, unprotected sex, they're going to do it anyway regardless of whether incestuous marriage is legalised or not.
That is true, but I was specifically referring to having kids, if two siblings want to get married, I honestly wouldn't care, they can get married and live together - that's none of my business, but having kids is an issue, like I've outlined above.
But yeah, even though I'm for gay marriage, I'm uneasy on incestous marriages at the moment, purely because of what Dan's said about the issue of "power in the relationship" as well as kids.
-
Yes, the line can be drawn at "consenting adults" but what happens when a brother wants to marry a sister and they both consent? Should that be allowed?
What was with this insinuation then?
if two siblings want to get married, I honestly wouldn't care, they can get married and live together - that's none of my business, but having kids is an issue
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???