Further Food For Thought On Gay Marriage.
We've had a bit of a discussion in the comments down below regarding gay marriage and some of the fallout from the Prop 8 vote in California (also known to some as the PRK - People's Republik of Kalifornia).Jeremy has been holding down the lefty side of things against MarkL and MK.
Well, to add to this discussion, I came across a blog post discussing assisted suicide, of all things, which has some relevance to the topic at hand.
Many of the “rights” which are being promulgated and promoted by today’s secular culture are in reality straw men, fine-sounding proxies for demands and desires far less salutary than they sound. Thus, gay marriage is not about gays getting married (hence the lack of enthusiasm among gay rights advocates for civil unions which provide all the legal benefits of marriage), but is instead an effort to destroy traditional heterosexual marriage as normative in culture, thereby removing not merely legal but cultural restraints on all forms of sexual and relational deviancy. The high standard — heterosexual marriage, with its enormous advantages in the raising of children and establishment of societal self-restraint, morality, and relational stability — must be brought down to the lowest common denominator of any two (or more) people getting “married” — with the sole purpose of muting societal condemnation for self-gratifying, dysfunctional and heterodox partnerships. Unrestricted abortion, a.k.a. “freedom of choice”, is about the uncompromising (albeit delusional) demand for unconstrained sexual license without consequences — especially for women, but also for their sperm donors who want no responsibility for their casual hookups: dispose of the unplanned pregnancy, move on to your next “partner”, and you have achieved the perfect “zipless fuck.”
(h/t to Vanderluen)
The Doc who wrote this excerpt is spot on. We have civil unions, and with the discrimination laws we have in place getting more restrictive, means that there is ever-growing discrimination against those who believe in what was once considered "normal."
You were born, grew up, got married, had kids.
These days, the getting married part is accepted as being optional, and open to everyone. There was that woman who married a dolphin.
"Marriage" as an institution is a religious sacrament in the eyes of most people, but in our secular society we have common law unions, de-facto unions, caring relationships.
And even these caring relationships are being improved upon as we speak.
This just further erodes the foundations upon which our civilisation is built.
We can talk about rights, and privileges all we like, we can jump up and down and demand respect all we like, but so many people don't seem to get it - respect is earned, not taken, and all the tanties in the world won't get it for you.
posted by Nilk @ 2:30 PM
21 Comments:
Uh, no, no-one ever legally "married" a dolphin. No country in the world recognises a "marriage" between a human and an animal.
This is of course completely different from gay marriage, in which a form of gender-based discrimination is simply removed. I am permitted by law in Victoria to marry a woman. My female friend is not. When a woman is prevented by a law from doing something a man is entitled to do, it's called discrimination. It is wrong.
Gay marriage is not about heterosexual marriage at all: it's about equality. Abortion is not about "zipless fucks", it's about a woman's rights over her own body.
Could you at least, if you're going to be attempting to debate these issues, try to honestly understand what your opponents are arguing?
I understand the only consistent objection to gay marriage - the religious one, which says "I am certain that God says X and governments have to impose my view on the subject on everyone else". That's nuts, and scary, but it's at least internally consistent. Every other "argument" against gay marriage is, to be frank, stupid. The "slippery slope" argument, which ignores that all gay marriage requires is treating men and women equally. The "it'll devalue heterosexual marriages" argument, which doesn't even make a cursory amount of sense. The "legal marriage is only valid if it will produce children" argument, which is obviously completely wrong, since, for example, we're entirely happy with menopausal women marrying. The "the word marriage has a very important meaning and if you redefine it you're breaking society" argument, which completely ignores all the ways in which our definition of marriage has changed over the course of human history (even from the Old Testament, where it meant polygamy).
They're all really, really bad arguments to justify such serious discrimination against people just because of their gender. The MY RELIGION MUST BE IMPOSED ON ALL OF US BECAUSE MY GOD SAYS SO is the only one that I can understand someone holding, but if governments were to actually follow that line of logic we'd degenerate into religious warfare in weeks.
Gay marriage will come, and society will not crumble. It is inevitable. It is inevitable, because it is just, and fair, and obviously right, and only old fogeys who genuinely think gays are lesser human beings whose relationships are unworthy of equality actually oppose it. And they'll die off.
It's just a pity they're making the present generation of gay people suffer in the meantime.
Um, Jeremy.. society is crumbling. All you have to do is look around for yourself.
I do see the opposing view, and I disagree with it.
Let's take religion out of the equation, which obviously we have to do if it's either the christian or jewish religion we're talking about and look at what our civilisation is actually built upon.
One man, one woman, procreation and therefore continuing the species. Because humans take a long time to develop psychologically and physiologically, it makes sense for the biological parents to remain together until the offspring are self-sufficient.
How do you ensure that they do remain together? You place conditions upon their union, you restrict their ability to run off with whomever they choose, and neglect the care of their child.
Since it's rather poor form to use the judeo-christian model, how about we check out other societies? In just about every one around, you find that a legally, religiously, binding marriage is between one man and one woman.
Of course, we can leave muslims and mormons out of this, although polygamy is another unhealthy form of "marriage".
Sure, we can all talk about the ancient greeks with their penchant for boys, but we're not living in ancient Greece. Same with the Romans.
Why is it necessary to have a "marriege" anyway? It's one thing for me, as a middle-aged woman who won't be breeding again to get married, since I happen to believe in Jesus, but there is all that legislation out there designed to give gays all the rights of a married couple anyway.
There are heretical pastors who have no difficulty going against the church's teachings and marrying gay couples, after which you can sign the registry with the appropriate department.
I think those pastors and priests should be defrocked and excommunicated, but that's another discussion entirely.
Oh, and regarding the ancient Greeks that a lot of people like to cite as being enlightened about homosexuality, remember that women were mainly seen as baby factories. Gotta make sure you have a son, remember.
So if you take the imposing your religious view on people who don't share it, your argument is basically that denying marriage to gays is necessary to produce the next generation. Really?
I fail to see how that makes any sense at all. If you're suggesting that forcing gays to marry a person of the opposite gender is likely to lead to good parenting outcomes, then I think you're fooling yourself.
Did you see Iain's suggestion on my comment thread that "As I see it a relationship register is entirely adequate for all non breeding couples and that includes the old and barren heterosexuals as well"? At least that's consistent with this "marriage is only for procreation" line. But I doubt you agree with it, or that many others do.
Would you refuse to remarry just because you're not planning on having more kids? Do you think the government should BAN you from remarrying unless you commit to procreate, and annul your marriage if you don't?
PS Actually, if you want gay marriage to be prevented, you guys should probably be praying for a complete collapse of civilisation and the rise of fundamentalist states - anything short of that, and you're simply going to lose as the generation that sees no reason to oppress gays takes over.
Uh, sorry -
"So if you take away the imposing your religious view on people who don't share it position , your argument is basically that denying marriage to gays is necessary to produce the next generation. Really?"
Good to see Jeremy pulling people up when they are talking absolute rott.
It's always painful arguing with conversatives because they are generally conservative due to a religious point of view. They tend to treat science & facts as things that can be discarded if it conflicts with their moral jesus thermometer.
The justifications for refusing gay people the right to marry are always the same predictable points.
e.g:
- Then people can just marry animals! (no, that's just stupid)
- It's encourages pedophilia! (no, thats just offensive)
- Marriage is a christian institution! (no, it isn't)
The same fruitcakes who think gays should not be allowed to marry are the same uneducated goons who thought:
- Woman who divorce their husbands go to hell
- Blacks shouldn't marry whites
- Electricity is evil
History is not kind to conservatives, they always look like fuckwits in the long run.
PS Actually, if you want gay marriage to be prevented, you guys should probably be praying for a complete collapse of civilisation and the rise of fundamentalist states - anything short of that, and you're simply going to lose as the generation that sees no reason to oppress gays takes over.
Hmmm. Has anyone here other than myself read any Bruce Bawer? A gay man who fled the fundie christians in the US for Europe has a very interesting view on that score.
Jeremy, there is a lot going on in the world, and a lot of it is happening in a reactive manner rather than a proactive manner. For example, the more I study christianity, the more I read about the politics of the day, the firmer my belief becomes that something is rotten in the state of Western Civilisation.
The evidence is there, if you choose to see it, and gay marriage, and lowering the age of consent and teaching children of their rights without demanding any responsibilities are symptoms of it.
Anon, redefining marriage from one man, one woman to two men, or two women changes a familial unit that has stood for thousands of years.
You may not think that stands for much, but the society that you're living in was built upon that foundation.
If you want to bring religion into it, let's look at that other major religion that's always in the news.
According to islam, not only shouldn't gays be married, they should be either thrown off a tall building or have a wall pushed on top of them. In Iran they are hanged.
But that sort of attitude is okay, since it tends to get a free pass in the media.
So long as you can redefine something so that it says what you want, that's okay also, I guess.
It doesn't seem to matter that I personally couldn't give a toss who does what with whom - paedophilia and bestiality notwithstanding - I'm just tired of having to appease other groups and tolerate and respect people who don't have the same accountability placed upon them.
"Anon, redefining marriage from one man, one woman to two men, or two women changes a familial unit that has stood for thousands of years."
No, you're not, because the people who are going to marry someone of the same gender WOULD NOT BE FORMING THAT FAMILIAL UNIT ANYWAY.
"According to islam, not only shouldn't gays be married, they should be either thrown off a tall building or have a wall pushed on top of them. In Iran they are hanged."
Whereas ordinarily, being linked with what fundamentalist Islam wants to do would bother you, for some reason it doesn't here. You're not seriously justifying discrimination against gays because fundamentalist Islam endorses it even more harshly than western Christianity?
"It doesn't seem to matter that I personally couldn't give a toss who does what with whom - paedophilia and bestiality notwithstanding - I'm just tired of having to appease other groups and tolerate and respect people who don't have the same accountability placed upon them."
How about equality then?
"No, you're not, because the people who are going to marry someone of the same gender WOULD NOT BE FORMING THAT FAMILIAL UNIT ANYWAY."
Exactly, so why should it have the same name?
I'm against fundamentalist islam, and discrimination against gays. FFS, I've been accused of being a faghag, but I'm sure that doesn't count because I happen to like the idea of marriage being for one man and one woman.
Yes, it's a religious thing.
As for equality? No such thing.
A democracy, representative or otherwise, is supposed to be based on the will of the majority.
So much for that idea, hey, Jeremy?
Have you actually read the discrimination legislation we have here in Melbournistan?
And again, if you are redefining something, you are changing its meaning and therefore negating it.
Orwell is another essential read these days.
"Exactly, so why should it have the same name?"
Because the word for when two consenting adults commit to each other for life is "marriage". That's the word.
The religious community does not have a monopoly on the word "marriage" any more, and they don't get to decide what it means for the rest of us.
"I'm against fundamentalist islam, and discrimination against gays. FFS, I've been accused of being a faghag, but I'm sure that doesn't count because I happen to like the idea of marriage being for one man and one woman."
If you want government to maintain legislation discriminating against gays, then you can hardly say you are opposed to discrimination against gays.
"As for equality? No such thing.
A democracy, representative or otherwise, is supposed to be based on the will of the majority. "
That doesn't justify the majority denying the minority their civil rights. It was wrong when the majority denied aborigines the vote. It was wrong when the majority denied women the vote. It was wrong when the majority in the American South before the Civil War voted to maintain slavery.
The majority can be wrong. If indeed the majority wishes to continue to discriminate against gays (which is by no means certain, actually) for no good reason, then it is still wrong. And will be overturned by history. Which will look upon the anti-equality crowd with absolute contempt.
"For example, the more I study christianity, the more I read about the politics of the day, the firmer my belief becomes that something is rotten in the state of Western Civilisation."
Learning about history and how religious attitutes have shaped society is something everyone should learn. It's important that we look as why certain periods in history were called "the enlightment" and the "dark ages".
[guess which of these had the rules of christianity dominating society the most? ;) ]
Your concern about the 'state of western civilisation' is understandable, but to protect the family unit and the dignity of marriage you should be protesting Elizabeth Taylors numerous marriages and the fact that any drunk person in Vegas can do it for sh*ts and giggles.
Truth be told, gay people will only get the right to marry when straight people have made such a mockery of it that it's not even taken seriously any more.
Case-closed.
Er, the case is not 'closed' spark.
One a side note, Europe is going through what i'd regard as a 'dark ages'. [guess which side of the political sphere is dominating society the most?;]
But coming back to the issue at hand, i take it you're in favor of gay marriage, yes?
Then perhaps you can answer the following questions i posed to jeremy elsewhere. I think he's busy helping the poor to find social justice against big oil and eeeeevil corporations.
So if you're in favor of gay marriage, how many would you draw the line at, 3, 4, 6, 10 homos who all love each other all getting married to each other? Will you draw the line at two people, homo or otherwise?
If so, are you seriously telling me that if they (5-10 homos) all love each other and are committed to each other, you'd still deny them, you'd still discriminate against them, you'd still oppress them, like folks back in the day did to women and african slaves? If so, i want to hear you say it explicitly.
Also, assuming you can explain why you'd deny marriage to 3 or more homos in loving, committed gay-sex relationships wanting to tie the knot, would you deny a brother and sister who love each other the right to marry? What about mother and son, father and daughter, father and son, mother and daughter, sister and sister, brother and brother. If they all love each other and are committed to each other, you'd still deny them, you'd still discriminate against them, you'd persecute them, you'd still oppress them, like folks back in the day did to women and african slaves? If so, i'd like to hear you say it.
I see the discussion has degenerated to the point where we're making false comparisons between homosexuality, polygamy and incest. It's combined with the usual lie that gay marriage supporters want gay marriage recognised ONLY on the basis of "love" claims between two gay people. The word "equality" in supporters' arguments is, as usual, conveniently ignored.
Personally I think the opposition to gay marriage comes from an insistence that heterosexuality should be considered better than homosexuality. That's the reason for the insistence on reserving the "m" word for the "superior" heterosexual majority. Same-sex-attracted people disagree, obviously. Who are you to call us inferior?
One a side note, Europe is going through what i'd regard as a 'dark ages'. [guess which side of the political sphere is dominating society the most?;]
This one wins for dumbest quote of the thread. What's the evidence for these 'dark ages' MK? The last time Europe had a dark ages, your Christian pals were in charge. I suspect your knowledge of this continent derives solely from right-wing spam and National Lamppon's European Vacation.
As for the political sphere in charge of Europe - it's clearly the right. Brown (like his predecessor, Blair) are 'New Labour', which is to say, basically neo-cons. Berlosconi and Sarkozy are rightists. So is Merkel. Spain's PM is a lefty, but he is the only one in any of Europe's major countries. Several Eastern European nations are both right-wing and pro-US.
If you can botch one sentence so badly, it doesn't bode well for the rest of your 'argument'.
"Good to see Jeremy pulling people up when they are talking absolute rott."
As long as Jeremy's not pulling people off in public, he can bugger himself silly in private.
The Jeremy would have his lifestyle foisted on innocents, just as Peter Slinger http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm would rationalise that as long as the child is not hurt ostensibly and physically, its OK.
We see children inflicted with faggotry via the school cistern, often without parental consultation. The yellow queers do it at arms length and by proxy because, to be honest, parents would beat the freakin' shit out of them if they did it identifiable and personally.
A conditional warning Jeremy. If I catch you or your faggot friends near my kids with the intent to deprive them of their opportunity to innocence so as to satiate your deviate NEED for acceptance, I'll bugger you in 'objectively in ways that you only dreamed of.
I speak from experience. As a 16 yr old school boy while sailing my surfcat in Perth, my straight mate and I were approached by two of your poofter mates in the sand hills near the beach, who were hanging out for a bit of rough trade. Like predatory prairie dogs they bobbed up and down in observation as they stalked us until one of them popped up next to us while his faggot mate gorked from afar, probably aroused in expectation. We were both innocents and these animals have no shame. Knowing what I know now, it would have been appropriate and justified for us to beat the crap out of these low life predator faggots. The "law" that you serve and worship would not have been able to protect them.
Piss off Faggot.
Electricity is to evil you apologist for poofter fascist authoritarians.
CatWeasel said, or at least suspected so.
That's gold, "bugger off", you parody of a psychopathic idiot.
PS You realise that if you conclude that anyone who believes in equality for gays is themselves gay, then Australia is close to 50% gay? THEY'RE EVERYWHERE AND COMING TO GET YOU!1!11!!!!
Personally I think the opposition to gay marriage comes from an insistence that heterosexuality should be considered better than homosexuality.
That's because it is. Homosexuality is not normal. Sorry.
Although, even if you were right on tht score, there are plenty of reasons not to approve gay marriage. And many gay people agree.
"Although, even if you were right on tht score, there are plenty of reasons not to approve gay marriage. And many gay people agree."
Such as? Here's a list - please feel free to add any I haven't thought of, and clarify which of those explain YOUR support of discrimination against gays.
Who? Which gay people think they don't deserve equal rights to heterosexual people? And even if you could find a few self-loathing gays, why should their self-loathing justify further oppression of other gay people?
"That's because it is. Homosexuality is not normal. Sorry."
Says you. Define "normal".
Post a Comment
<< Home