Gay marriage

[Tomw2]

Marriage is not a civil right but a social construct and should be subject to social approval

Convenient distinction.

Whenever I hear it, it makes me wonder if, deep down in places people don't talk about at brunches and parties, the whole thing is really just about pointlessly defending the mythical socially constructed, hegemonic Disney heterosexuality. Understandable - it must be confronting for some people to be faced with any notion that would suggest their pure, natural and occasionally/possibly child-bearing love is in any way comparable to those abominable sodomites. I digress.

Personally, I just think that when socially approved social constructs marginalise people, there should be a sound and consistent justification and rationalisation. E.g. demonstrable harm. Particularly if it is defended by law.

I haven't come across a justification that is consistent and makes sense. When you shave the arguments down and cut though a bunch of logical fallacies there are only these at the core of every point:
1. I hate/fear/am disgusted by homosexuals, therefore anything that normalises them offends me
2. [insert deity, idol, parent, author of dubious text etc here] says so and I choose to believe them
3. (2) because (1)

Also what's wrong with arguments with a religous basis

The religion part; it's redundant. If a defensible and reasonable argument just so happens to come from religious discourse, it has nothing to do with the religion and everything to do with the logic and reason.

[Russ]

gay couples should be allowed civil union, and they would considered just as married as a straight couple who also had a non-religious marriage.

Yeah, I think this is the thing the LGBT community doesn't like though, because it is really just "got ours, screw you". Allowing a renamed form of marriage to be extended isn't what they're after.

Okay...I guess I'm just stupid :/ I'll leave this conversation.

What, no that was never my intention and sorry if it came across that way

Not desirable according to who? And why does this mysterious person(s) who does not desire marriage have the right to be the ultimate arbiter of who gets to access this "undesirable entity"?

It's not reducible like that, it's about the role marriage serves in society and whether or not it is a desirable element when you consider all aspects of it. If it's not, we shouldn't be sanctioning any marriages, so increasing the domain of marriage further is also undesirable. I don't disagree that this isn't an argument against same sex marriage specifically, rather than as a subset of all marriage, but I needed a second point and I cheated

I completely agree with your first point, actually. There is absolutely no civil right for marriage in Australia (nor in any other country as far as I'm aware). We are talking here about whether same-sex marriage should be legalised, not whether it has to be legalised.

Moral imperative is one thing and is probably an important distinction to make when you consider the role the law/government has in society, but I think this ties in a lot better with what Tom said, (which is what I was expecting when I first posted, but I thought it was an interesting point)

Personally, I just think that when socially approved social constructs marginalise people, there should be a sound and consistent justification and rationalisation. E.g. demonstrable harm. Particularly if it is defended by law.

I agree with this. There are social constructs that exist and that are sanctioned (formally/informally) that do not treat all groups equally, but they generally tend to have certain rationales behind them (paternity vs maternity leave I suppose). The confrontational point is apt, a lot of people are opposed to change for the sake of it, although I'm not sure it's necessarily because of a latent distaste for homosexuals as opposed to more rigid adherence to "tradition".

[availn]

Yeah, I think this is the thing the LGBT community doesn't like though, because it is really just "got ours, screw you". Allowing a renamed form of marriage to be extended isn't what they're after.

You misunderstand me. I just say civil union to differentiate religious and non religious marriage. They would be married, just as how secular couples are married. The only difference is that the church recognises a secular marriage between people of opposite gender, but will probably not recognise gay marriage; hence "civil union", which is probably not going to be recognised by the church.

[Professor Polonsky]

So basically what you're saying, is "let's rename civil marriage to civil unions, and leave marriage to religions." Which is fine, but why? I can't think of any state interest to do so. Seems a little pointless.

[Tomw2]

The confrontational point is apt, a lot of people are opposed to change for the sake of it, although I'm not sure it's necessarily because of a latent distaste for homosexuals as opposed to more rigid adherence to "tradition".

Fair point, I was being reductive. I suppose in my own limited experience with people in the 'vote no' crowd, the sentiment more frequently reflects culturally-based core beliefs of "but that's just not how it works" and perceptions of homosexuals as 'other', as opposed to disgust.

Still, I'm suspicious of the more militant attempts to tie marriage with terms such as "organic bodily union", "heterosexual union", procreation etc. It reeks of a covert fallacious appeal to nature. 

So basically what you're saying, is "let's rename civil marriage to civil unions, and leave marriage to religions." Which is fine, but why? I can't think of any state interest to do so.

Neither can I. However there is impassioned argument from those opposing marriage equality, claiming there are numerous tangible benefits to the state and society in doing what is, in my mind, analogous to the  anti-miscegenation laws in the US prior to 1967 that outlawed interracial marriage and intimacy.

Russ made a point earlier about "discrimination". I agree somewhat - the 'discrimination' part is irrelevant. As a society we readily and happily discriminate (in the strict definition of the word) against a number of groups and individuals. Most of the discrimination is completely uncontentious and is in fact viewed as positive.
It is, for instance, discrimination to have separate bathroom facilities for males and females. It's discrimination to fine people who do not give up a disabled access seat on public transport to a person with certain special needs.

The crucial element is the justification. Is it sound, is it rational, is it consistent with rights, liberties and values as well as evidence and to what degree.

[BubbleWrapMan]

Well, there are emerging homosexual movements in several religions, including Judaism. Check out the film 'Trembling Before God' - it documents the plight of a group of gay Orthodox Jews struggling to find acceptance in their respective communities, and the ways in which they attempt to retain their religious connection in light of this. As stated previously, homosexuality is involuntary. So, those who enter same-sex relationships and seek SSM marriage aren't necessarily irreligious; in recent years, the Reform movement has offered a safehaven for gay couples who would otherwise be forced to repress their sexuality, remain celibate (thereby contradicting the fundamental tenet of Genesis 2:6), or abandon the religion entirely, condoning SSM but allowing individual synagogues to formulate their own policies on this. Unfortunately though, those brought up in staunch Orthodox communities often find themselves unable to embrace the Reform movement as equally legitimate to Orthodoxy, and as a consequence, many end up removing themselves from their religion altogether, "to salvage a sense of dignity and to build a life" - as noted by Rabbi Steve Greenberg, the first openly gay Orthodox (and disputedly so) rabbi.

I'm aware that it's involuntary, but marriage certainly isn't. I just wonder why anyone would want it so badly when it's clearly going to be more trouble than it's worth. Interesting point nonetheless.

[QuidProQuo]

Maybe marriage is sought by many religious same-sex couples because it is highly symbolic, especially in a religious context. In this case, Jewish marital customs are intrinsically linked to Jewish history and heritage - for example, the shattering of the glass embodies the Jews' historic mourning over the destruction of the Second Temple whilst living in exile in a hostile Diaspora. So, it may represent more than just the union of two lovers; rather an entwinement with the couple's religious tradition as whole - and for many, to God of course. But yes, as a practical institution, marriage seems to be too cumbersome to warrant the lengths to which people go to attain it...

[BubbleWrapMan]

That's a good point. Makes me wonder how religion lasted this long though.

[slothpomba]

Just out of interest, can anyone here come up with a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage which is not grounded on religious beliefs?

Not passing any judgment on the rightness or wrongness but everyone has their lines in the sand, whether right or wrong. For some people, this just might be where the line is. Everyone is also conservative (not in the sense of abbott or whatever) to a degree, they want to conserve and keep somethings as are. For some people, this might just be one of the things they want to maintain.

I know plenty of people who only really religious in name alone and don't like it for whatever reason. Now whether the reasons are objectively good or not and whether they're related to the fact they just don't like gay people being with each-other (no law to stop that) or if they have some special reason why they're just against them getting married. Either way, regardless of whatever reasons people have, good or bad, in the end, they are voting on those. We can argue all we like but we vote in the people who make the laws. With the way things are headed, it seems it is more or less inevitable in the short-medium term.

And now, here is a hyper-religious troll

[Professor Polonsky]

'That's my line in the sand' is not a compelling argument. In fact, any sort of personal objection is not sufficient when deciding on public policy. Do you still get to vote on it? Sure. But you're also automatically wrong if you can't back up your beliefs with logic and reason.

Everyone is also conservative (not in the sense of abbott or whatever) to a degree, they want to conserve and keep somethings as are.

Actually, I'm a lot more conservative on social issues than economic ones. I believe that progressive social change should be implemented, but sometimes it should only happen incrementally in order to allow society to adjust.

[bridger]

I see New Zealand's parliament has voted in favour of legalising same-sex marriage today with quite a comfortable majority. It will be interesting to see whether this adds any pressure on Australian politicians to reconsider their stance on the issue. Gillard has already said it changes nothing for her, but nevertheless should be interesting to see if it has any effect on the debate in Australia
I'm all for same-sex marriage btw. I think that it's all part of the normalisation of social attitudes to LGBT individuals. I think this can be especially important for young LGBT who studies have shown suffer higher rates of mental illness and suicide than non-LGBT. The whole civil unions vs marriage thing sounds too much like "separate but equal" which is never the way for society to move forward cohesively

[Loneranger12]

Look at Netherlands only 12% of same sex married couples actually bothered to marry.. Tradition is tradition people should understand that choice sometimes comes at a price and what the majority of individuals believe shouldn't be labelled as bigots or homophobes because in reality an opinion is an opinion and you can't change that

[brenden]

what the majority of individuals believe shouldn't be labelled as bigots or homophobes because in reality an opinion is an opinion and you can't change that

Dat Holocaust. Don't be labellin', peeps.

[Thu Thu Train]

Look at Netherlands only 12% of same sex married couples actually bothered to marry..

What is your point? Not all gay couples get married therefore we shouldn't have gay marriage? Not all straight couples get married therefore I don't think we should have marriage at all.

what the majority of individuals believe shouldn't be labelled as bigots or homophobes because in reality an opinion is an opinion and you can't change that

Opinions change all the time.

[Tomw2]

what the majority of individuals believe shouldn't be labelled as bigots or homophobes because in reality an opinion is an opinion and you can't change that

An opinion can be both bigoted and homophobic regardless of how many people hold that opinion. Similarly an opinion can be illogical, inconsistent, unjustified and irrational regardless of its popularity. The notion that a popular opinion shouldn't be challenged or condemned doesn't stand up on a number of levels.

I am of course assuming you aren't trolling.