“It’s the vibe” is not a valid argument against gay rights

Carter says:

07:43am | 18/11/10

Ah, @Against the Man… There’s more ‘support’ from the ALP than the Libs…

DB says:

07:51am | 18/11/10

It’s a shame the reporter has not got the maturity to see this as a smoke screen to distract from the continual run of the ALP disasters and the integrity to report the real stories.

PaulB says:

09:50am | 18/11/10

Its a legit issue for some of us, but yes, I agree with you DB.  This has been thrown up as a distraction.  As the Americans have shown it is a popular political distraction issue because the media leaps on it to the exclusion of other matters, and ultimately nothing changes because if it did the distraction value would be over.

DB says:

10:09am | 18/11/10

PaulB, irrespective what I feel on the Gay topic, I feel sorry for the gay community to be used in such a vial way by Labor.

Barry says:

10:48am | 18/11/10

Really though aren’t the Greens a joke of a political party?  Sure, you want to argue for gay marriage that’s nice, but the Greens portrayed themselves as a strong alternative, a political party interested in getting things done for the average Australian.  That’s not to say homosexuals aren’t the average Australian, but this situation effects a small number of people.  I’d like to see the Greens concentrate their efforts upon other issues as well as same-sex marriage.  The truth is though Bob Brown just wants to marry his boyfriend, and so far have shown little interest in other issues.

Adam Diver says:

11:03am | 18/11/10

Watch as I fix an issue:

Give gays the same legal rights (without the kids - seperate debate)

Let them call it whatever the hell they want, except for the term marriage.

The same reason they are offended they can’t get married is the same reason people are offended that they want to use the term.

Problem solved, most people happy, life moves on.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

11:39am | 18/11/10

“The debate” (if that’s what this is) won’t get far with people like Phelps likening the situation to apartheid and the berlin wall… she gets the hyperbole award for the day.

Besides, isn’t marriage based on religion? Gay people would not be recognised by the church as married, regardless of what one called it.

Why is it, that gays and lesbians (is there a difference?) demand that society change to suit them? Being a democracy, I thought it would be majority rule, not the majority beinding to the minority. Personally I couldn’t care less what someone called their union, and defacto relationships or civil unions have the same legal standing (in almost all cases).

Lastly, I’d like to know more about this widely quoted “survey” that says ?60% of Australians support gay marriage. I reckon 95% couldn’t give a rats and don’t think about it at all.

Barry says:

12:26pm | 18/11/10

That said I understand a lot of parties are focused on a small number of issues such as Family First, and the Sex Party.  In terms, of being a 3rd party alternative to Labor and Liberal, the Greens fall very short.

Steely Dan says:

12:33pm | 18/11/10

@ Brad of Bentleigh

“Besides, isn’t marriage based on religion?”
It has been, but it isn’t always.  If you want to argue that marriage is necessarily religious, the government shouldn’t be declaring any couple married, they should respect the separation of church and state and keep their hands off religious rites.

“Gay people would not be recognised by the church as married, regardless of what one called it.”
The wouldn’t be recognised by most churches.  Just like two of the three legal marriages I’ve attended in the last few months aren’t recognised by any churches.  Did you think recognition by ‘the” church was a prerequisite for legal marriage?

CJ Morgan says:

07:47pm | 18/11/10

Wayne, how does nature “:intend” anything?

Erik says:

03:12pm | 19/11/10

To the posters who claim that this is a minority issue only affecting a small number of people, and that is better to put weight behind other larger political issues.

Consider that this is not a gay issue at all, it is not confined to the small percentage of homosexuals in our community, but is a basic civil rights issue, until Australia has full civil rights for all of its citizens then no Australian citizen is truly free.

Its a dangerous trap to dissociate yourself from this just because you are not part of that minority, you are giving permission to others in power to decide for you whom gets to have rights in this country and who doesn’t based on whats fashionable at the time. Until Australia can claim we have a level playing filed of civil rights for all our citizens no matter who they are then this should always be front & center. Equal Civil rights are not a distraction.

Harry says:

07:48am | 18/11/10

Get F****ed! Society degenerates further.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:14am | 18/11/10

Alfred you state that gay marriage is a ” basic human right ” .
Kerrryn Phelps says gay marriage is “out there ” and that ” the momentum is unstoppable “
Does the small detail such as female/ female ,  male/male being against the order of nature get any consideration.
I don’t agree that it is a basic human right , i don’t care that gay marriage is out there and i sure as hell believe that it’s momentum   * is *stoppable.
Hey !  all of you take a step back - there is nothing natural about gay marriage - humans are born male and female with the procreational intent that they mate and multiply .  Black and white not black and black or white and white.
As Biff says below , can we fix our hospitals , take care of those with a mental problem help carers , before we worry about gay marriage. ?

There are far higher priorities than this abomination.

Jack says:

09:03am | 18/11/10

Well said Wayne!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Syl says:

09:17am | 18/11/10

Wayne,

You do realise that Homosexuality is not a human only occurence.  It happens in the animal kingdom as well.

“there is nothing natural about gay marriage - humans are born male and female with the procreational intent that they mate and multiply .  Black and white not black and black or white and white.”

So can sterile people marry, how bout disabled people who are unable to have sex? They are unable to multiply.  Since when was marriage the catalyst for reproduction.  I thought sex did that, sex and marriage are not the same thing.  Or is that religion speaking??  If so, marriage is NOT a religious only ceremony, and religious ideals should NOT be enforced on those who don’t believe in them.
As for the black and white thing….. I have no idea how that analagy fits and im not touching that with a ten foot pole.

I DO however agree that there are more important things to worry about (for me personally). HOWEVER I do recognise that for many people this is extremely important, and I would never seek to belittle someone elses priorities because they are not in line with my own.  I grew out of that in high school.

Elise says:

09:21am | 18/11/10

Wayne Fehlhaber - I sincerely hope your son doesn’t come to you one day and tell you he is gay, or that your lesbian daughter wants to give you a grandchild. I pity your narrow world view and I am sad that there are people like you in our 21st century society who insist on stripping others of their rights while hiding behind ‘the order of nature’.

RGG says:

09:25am | 18/11/10

Against nature? Please, homosexualtiy is well documented in nature. It’s not something that was only invented by humans in the last 50 years. Your ‘marriage is for procreation’ argument is equally weak; what about those couples who never intend to have children? Should they be excluded from marriage?

Amy says:

10:03am | 18/11/10

I agree Elise, it’s unbelievable that people like Wayne still exist. It makes me so sad. Homophobes confuse me, they are so scared and angry about something that doesn’t concern them. Shouldn’t they be happy they have the rights to marry and have babies and live how they like and not going out of their way to stop others from the same rights?

DEAR HOMOPHOBES,
WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN IF GAYS MARRY!?
Will they ruin your life? Will the world stop spinning? Will it turn YOU gay? Will it turn your DOG gay!?....

No. Your life will continue as per usual, but a lot of gay people will be happy SO back off and get over it. Go back to your husband/wife, 3.5 kids and cave that you live in and give human beings the rights to live the life they want.

I don’t understand why it’s so much to ask.

CJ Morgan says:

10:19am | 18/11/10

What’s “natural” about marriage?  It is a cultural rite devised by humans - other species don’t marry, as far as I’m aware.

Also, there’s a wide range of relationships that are recognised as legitimate marriages across cultures, such as between widows and ghosts, between sisters, polygynous and even polyandrous arrangements. 

Sorry, there’s absolutely nothing “natural” about marriage.  Try another specious argument to disguise your homophobia.

Darren says:

10:41am | 18/11/10

Wayne, You are a moron. If it was against the order of nature than why the hell are there so many of us born this way? As for marriage for procreation, albeit 2 males can not procreate but I think you may be astounded to find how many gay people have children through other means.
I also believe our governments should be concentrating on hospitals etc but why are you “worried” about gay marriage? How does it effect you? It doesn’t and really should be none of your damn business if me and my partner want to marry if we chose too.

Robert says:

10:58am | 18/11/10

I support the rights for Gays to get married. I also support the rights for religious groups to not have to perform ceremonies to marry gay people. Why does no one consider this middle ground when “fighting” for their rights.

Peter says:

11:16am | 18/11/10

Well said Wayne..,the attempt of course is to try and intimidate people who oppose their view as racists ,dinosaurs backward and ignorant. There is a difference between gays and heterosexuals and allowing them to marry based on human rights is no different than allowing a brother and sister to marry for the same reason.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

11:46am | 18/11/10

How about all those religious types whos own marriages will be devalued (in their eyes) by allowing gays to marry in exactly the same way.
Marriage and religion are linked, and there’s nothing that can change that.
How about creating some other type of areligious cerimony that hetros aren’t allowed to have… that’d be fair.

Luce says:

01:46pm | 18/11/10

Nice Wayne, using the old trick of marriage only being about procreation as a mask for your outright bigotry eh? If marriage is only about procreation, should we make it illegal for heterosexual couples who don’t intend to have children to marry? What about couples where one or both of them are infertile? No, of course not! Because marriage is also about love, and if two people are in love and want to build a life together, regardless of their intentions or ability to have children, regardless of their gender, they should have the same legal rights as everyone else.

Its such a shame that people like you think they have valid reason to interfere with other peoples’ private lives because of your own short sighted prejudices. Grow the f*** up.

Jay says:

01:59pm | 18/11/10

Actually marriage precedes organised reilgion - it was a pagan ritual first. These days, most marriages arent religious either, but legal - why the religious nutbags have a problem with this is beyond me.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

02:37pm | 18/11/10

So many of you have strongly defended your indulgence in social behaviour which contradicts the order of nature and i acknowledge that you have the right to do so . The hysterical attacks on my views and lewd suggestions as to what i am and can do simply does not change the facts of my argument.
It seems the major line of contention is on the sanctity of marriage in relation to gay couples.
One poster has even tried to misrepresent my words to infer a racist slant.  Those words were - * Black and white not black and black or white and white. *  simply put meaning -  * Male and female not male and male or female and female. *
The sanctity of marriage , civil or religious , IS meant strictly for those male and female of the human species who love each other to marry and procreate as nature intended.
Another poster , points up homosexuality in the animal kingdom .  That
statement strengthens my case .  -

We           are             not             animals.

We           are             human         beings.

We           were         born           male           and       female.

Natures intent was procreation via the male and female species.
There are no grey areas , it is a very simple fact that can not be confused or distorted by any amount of false justification .

Nothing i say is will likely to sway those who seek to put a respectable face on depravity , but if i can voice my side of this issue and put both sides up for consideration , then it just may help younger people to chose what they perceive to be right.

Luce says:

03:49pm | 18/11/10

Actually Wayne we ARE animals, and nature never “intended” anything. Homosexuality is an anomaly of evolution and it exists in many species, of which humans are one (yes, we are a species. We evolved from animals, and we continue to be animals). Sexual attraction to the same gender is NOT depravity, and it doesn’t go against the “natural order” of things. Its part of nature and the sooner you, and others like you, open your eyes and accept that, the sooner we can move forward as a society.

There is nothing right or wrong about homosexuality. It just is what it is, and it doesn’t in anyway harm you whether two people of the same sex are allowed to marry or not.  Your closed minded views are only promoting prejudice when what we need is tolerance. What YOU are doing is more harmful to society then anything a gay or lesbian couple does in the privacy of their relationship.

Steely Dan says:

04:14pm | 18/11/10

@ Wayne

“So many of you have strongly defended your indulgence in social behaviour which contradicts the order of nature and i acknowledge that you have the right to do so .”
The ‘order of nature’?  I was born via caesarian section - is that unnatural and therefore wrong?  I wear shoes - is that unnatural and therefore wrong?  Welcome to the Naturalistic Fallacy, Wayne.

“The sanctity of marriage , civil or religious , IS meant strictly for those male and female of the human species who love each other to marry and procreate as nature intended.”
Procreate?  Not in the law at all.  As for the ‘male and female’ bit, just replace it with ‘consenting adults’.  It’s our law, we can change it if we want to.  What’s the problem?

“We       are         not         animals.”
Biology   makes     no         such       distinction.
You’re not going to start saying ‘my grandpappy didn’t come from no monkey’ are you, Wayne?

We       were       born       male       and     female.
What     about     people     born         with     multiple     sets     of     genitalia     or   XXY     chromosomes?

“Natures intent was procreation via the male and female species.”
You need to establish that nature has an intent.

Gaysion Invasion says:

04:46pm | 18/11/10

What is with the argument that gay marriage is against the natural order? The fact that Harry, Wayne Fehlhaber, Jack and Brad of Bentleigh can share my oxygen goes far beyond the natural order.

Syl says:

04:59pm | 18/11/10

Ahhh Wayne

I assume you mean my comment r.e. racial slant…. I never made ANY such inference.  I stated, CLEARLY, that I did not understand your analagy.  It makes no sense, and I did not wish to comment on it… you placed your own inference on it.

I love how you continually say that homosexual is not natural, even though it occurs in nature…. wow!  You must have been amazing in science class at school, thats some great hypothesising skills you have there.

Humans are animal, whether you like to admit it or not, it is only the arrogance of religion that elevates us above the status of highly evolved animal.

Whether natures intent was for procreation or not (and this is a grey area in itself), marriage is NOT a natural occuring phenomenon.  It is a man made ceremony.  It is not governed by nature, it is governed by US.  Marriage SHOULD be an acknowledgement of love and commitment between two people, not an exclusive clique where we pick and choose who has the right to express their love.

Why does no one of your opinion ever answer the question “what does it matter to you?”  It does not affect you directly if 2 guys (or gals) get married, so why do u care SO much.  Why do you think it is your right to deny someone else the happiness you may feel by being married.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

07:08pm | 18/11/10

Gasion Invasion :  Feel better now ?  Put all that hate and vitriol aside and look at * both * sides of the issue.  There is no cloak of decency to veil this abomination from being scruitinised by * all * Australians .

Joe says:

07:58am | 19/11/10

To say that the opponents of gay marriage are not putting forward any cogent arguments shows that Kerryn Phelps has not read far enough into this debate. This is poor journalism.

One of the taglines of gay rights activists is to address love as the real issue. Does love exist in a relationship only within marriage? No. So to define the issue properly, we are not talking about love, but about equality: Gay people want their relationships recognised as equal to that of heterosexual people.

No matter any scientific developments, these two types of relationships can never be the same. A heterosexual relationship will provide children in a natural way: through sex. Homosexual relationships require means other than the partners themselves to have a child. This is a fundamental difference. A heterosexual relationship is, in this way, a more ‘natural’ place to have a child, in the sense that it occurs naturally and without a third party. This is a fundamental difference.

It is true that even some married couples require help to have children. Some married couples cannot have children at all. That is just a fact of life. But this is not the exception, not the norm. For homosexual couples to have children, it is the norm that they require assistance. There is no way around that.

Importantly, a standard of a persons value is not their ability or choice not to have children. Pointing out that homosexual couples are unable to have children relying only on their own relationship is not to degrade them. It is merely to point out an important difference.

Further, it demonstrates that there is at least, a biological complementarity between a man and a woman. How far does this complementarity go? There are established differences in the ways men and women interact with other human beings. The way they express themselves and see relationships. Perhaps there could be an element of emotional complementarity here also?

And also, sorry, but since when is marriage a right?

Jess says:

09:09am | 19/11/10

@wayne as a catholic I don’t see how any god loving (yes god loving not got fearing as I don’t fear my lord) could be against the idea as 2 ppl who share a great love (love being the most holy of gift god has given us) being bound in holy sanctimony, god created us all and there for he created some with homosexuality and I believe that it is his will that homosexuality be in this world and there for weather you like it or not (personally I think it’s great and have many gay friends who I love dearly) it is his will so suck it up deal with it and know god doesnt make mistakes you ignorant wanker…. and yes I know not everyone believe in god but I feel those of us that do get a bad rep as bigot thanks to idiots like you and I thought maybe it would be nice for people to see that there are those of us with great faith in god and great faith in the fight for equality in the world.

Jess says:

10:26am | 19/11/10

oh and Wayne you say the bible is black and white but have you ever read it??? I have cover to cover and first off its very gray and constantly contradicts itself but if you really want to be a fundamentalist bible preacher got you verses right the only time homosexuality is ever mentioned in the bible is Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind” so tecnicly it only speak of men and there is nothing in the bible about female homosexuality plus the bible was written by men and a lot of what they said would be considered sadistic now take DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12 “If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.”——- just saying don’t take the bible to heart as it was not written by god but bigoted men who claim to be the word of god (but then again so did Charles Manson)... sorry to rabbit but people like you make me really sad and if you want o make a logical argument for well anything make sure you have your fact right and please don’t use my lord and a weapon of hate

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

11:25am | 19/11/10

Jess   :  Lets be clear on one point first up Jess , you have introduced religion into this debate , not me .  However ,  i will attempt to answer your questions and refute some of your sillier claims.

Yes , i have read my bible , in fact i have studied my bible.
Jess you seem to have read my comment and then gone off on some unrelated tangent of your own.  I made NO reference to religion or the bible .  My black and white reference is natures intent for male and female not male and male or female and female.
My comment has not strayed from natural facts but you have now sidelined the debate into religious consideration.

Levictus 18 : 22   ” Thou shalt not lie with mankind , as with womankind “

Hardly requires any discrimatory interpretation such as you provided Jess. It means what it says :  Man and woman , not man and man or woman and woman.
There would never , on my part , be any attempt to use Christ as a weapon of hate , as i have already pointed out to you , religion was not in my debate , it was only in yours.

I reiterate my aim in this debate is to bring forward both sides of this contentious issue as i believe young people deserve the right to consider both sides of the argument.

The intent of marriage , civil , religious or ceremonial , is intended for the extension of human life. ( procreation )

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

11:42am | 19/11/10

Syl   :  Your words ”  As for the Black and white thing…....i have no idea how that analogy fits and i’m not touching that with a ten foot pole. “

Not a racist inference.  ?  Come now Syl , methinks thou doth protest too much. !

The gay lobby’s plan to infect genuine male and female marriage convention with their abominable anti-nature behaviour is under strong challenge at last.

Syl says:

12:17pm | 19/11/10

Wayne

“Syl   :  Your words ”  As for the Black and white thing…....i have no idea how that analogy fits and i’m not touching that with a ten foot pole. “

Not a racist inference.  ?  Come now Syl , methinks thou doth protest too much. !”

I thought the words, “I have no idea how that analagy fits” explained my position pretty clearly.  It doesnt make sense, WTF do black and white have to do with being together. 

Also, way to pick the least important part of my post then ignore the rest!  You keep saying its against nature / its not natural, but, like many people have said, wait for it….. IT happens in nature!!!  OMG revelation!!

EVEN if it didnt, marriage is not a natural event, it has nothing to do with nature, it is man made.  WE made it, WE can change it.

I noticed you also skipped past the part where I ask how it affects you directly?  Why you feel the need to deny someone the opportunity to express there commitment the same way you can.

I can handle people having a different opinion, I understand your side of the debate (i actually felt the same, until recently).  But I dont understand the lack of a cohesive argument constantly given against that consists mainly of “oh they can’t breed naturally (neither can a lot of hetero couples) and OMG OMG the Family Unit is in trouble!! (as if somehow, their personal family life is going to be afftected)”

I too have my concerns about children raised in same sex relationships, I worry they may not get the strong female (or male) influence they require.  But i have seen a hell of a lot of irresponsible and, to put it bluntly, shit hetero parents. Good parenting comes down to the parents themselves and their dedication to their children, not their sexuality.

Ben says:

05:08pm | 05/12/10

Oh. Please. Alfred you sound like a politically-correct trumpet. Comparing gay rights to black civil rights is embarrassing.

Brian says:

06:57am | 18/11/10

Exactly how is a passing a quick law allowing gay and lesbian people to marry detracting from problems with hospitals? Fixing our hospitals and taking care of people with mental problems are LONG TERM issues that will take years if not decades to fix - changing an archaic law that allows gays and lesbians to have the equality of their hetereosexual counterparts will take minutes.

Jeremy says:

07:15am | 18/11/10

Knew it!

That is such a stupid argument - as if we can’t do more than one thing at once.

Alex Greenwich says:

07:20am | 18/11/10

Biff… marriage equality is very simple the goverment could pass the bill today. The only reason it is taken attention from the key issues you mention is because the Coalition and ALP want to continue to drag it out waste the parliaments time upholding discrimination against loving Australian couples

Mick says:

07:21am | 18/11/10

And then when those problems are fixed, there’ll be another issue to deal with that takes priority over gay marriage, and after that another, and so on. Marriage equality will find a permanent place on a list of things to get around to doing after all the stuff that’s considered really important. Or we could simply do it now, and that doesn’t mean not acting on the problems of mental health, or hospitals, carers, or anything else. We can do that to too.

Rosie says:

07:32am | 18/11/10

biff, the Gay people I know are more concerned about the mental problem, help carers etc and very happy having a “civil union” devised by themselves for themselves.

I think for those that are after “gay marriage” it should be granted as to me it only means a piece of paper the marriage certificate. What was more important to me was making the commitment in the house of God.

Julia Gillard doesn’t believe in marriage so should be fighting for “gay marriage.” It won’t be a political sucide if 60% of the population is OK with it!

Bill says:

07:39am | 18/11/10

It’s not a stupid argument Jeremy…That is exactly what happens. Government gets bogged down dithering with minor issues and ignore the important stuff. That IS how we got where we are.

Sid says:

07:46am | 18/11/10

Alex, this pathetic argument only serves the ALP to hid it’s incompetence. It distracts from the banks, the flood of illegal immigrants, insulation failure rates, etc, etc. It can be solved today, agreed. Declare Civil unions as the joining of same sex couples allowing them the rights they the rights they already have on the whole and move on.

James Bolster says:

09:07am | 18/11/10

Biff, if you’re worried about mental health issues consider that due to the continued discrimination of gay and lesbian people by Australia’s laws and broader society, gay & lesbian adolescents are four times more likely to self-harm than their heterosexual counterparts, not to mention the ridiculous suicide rate.
This is perhaps, then, one of the simplest steps that could be taken to combat such mental health issues by breaking the cycle of perpetual discrimination.

Smidgeling says:

09:13am | 18/11/10

Biff, Bill and all the other naysayers- Yes, the government does get bogged down with things like gay marriage because they’re too stupid to jusst say “Yes, gays can marry- NEXT”.

PaulB says:

09:58am | 18/11/10

Can Government do two things at once biff?  This is media distraction, which will go nowhere and result in the usual disappointment for those with an interest in the outcome….until the next time a distraction is needed.

Higgins says:

10:01am | 18/11/10

Fix health? Are you kidding? Dude, right now the health minister is doing everyhing she can to bankrupt medicare so they can find an excuse to sell it off to private enterprise. Wake up and face reality, the ALP is selling off Australia and everything we hold proud. Fixing health, yeah right, that will be the day.

joseph says:

12:02pm | 18/11/10

how about we multi-task.

Chris says:

06:38am | 18/11/10

Hear hear. I hate all these new phrases the PC mad brigade force us to say. Phrases like “civil union”. Why don’t we just call it marriage and be done with it.

Brendan says:

07:04am | 18/11/10

Yes, so terrible some terms and phrases have been ‘schooled out’.  Its like I can’t call someone a faggot, a nigger, an abo, a nip, a wog, a leso, a retard or a poof without being called a disgusting low life degenerate.  Such a terrible thing!

roger says:

07:09am | 18/11/10

Marriage was around before christians, so before you start trying to claim the rights to something, make sure it;s yours first.

Ryan Tessier says:

07:11am | 18/11/10

@Jim: But that’s just the thing, gay couples wanting to get married are saying “I don’t like it”. They don’t like not being able to visit one another if one of them is sick or injured in hospital. They don’t like not being able to leave things to their partners in a will. Nor do they like being told they aren’t good enough for “marriage”, even though our laws are supposedly seperate from religion.

You’re right. Enough is enough. But I’m going to the same-sex marriage rally on Saturday. It won’t hurt your commitment, but it will strengthen mine and my partner’s.

Different words have different meanings says:

07:13am | 18/11/10

I’m a woman, unambiguously declaring not only my sexuality, but accepting the definition of marriage as part of that commitment to a man, and also a statement of who I am.  Dictionaries define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, or husband and wife.  I’m a wife, I’m out and proudly a wife, through a traditional marriage.Homosexuals (rightly) must be recognised and accepted for “who we are”. That’s a good thing.  I want to continue being recognised for who I am too - a heterosexual woman in a married union with a man, probably a mother as a result of such male-female union.

No-one wants to change the descriptive word homosexual or demand that “gay” be redefined as happy, joyful instead of a sexual orientation noun.
In demanding adjustment to language that describes something cherished by heterosexuals, our grouping can feel loss that there’s an amalgamation process happening. It is not only homosexuals who wish to be defined as who they are, i.e, individuals of same sex preference.  No-one wants to hurt anyone.  Can something be left for us?
I don’t want any doubt about which sexual grouping I belong to, just as homosexuals feel that way too. This cuts both ways.  I remember when “gay” was something altogether different.  It’s meaning was changed to describe homosexuality.  I knew people whose surnames were “Gay” and they changed it because they felt their family name no longer described who they were.

Jeremy says:

07:13am | 18/11/10

If it’s “for all intents and purposes” a marriage, then why not call it what I bloody is?

Alex says:

07:24am | 18/11/10

Jim, I think what this author is saying, in this excellently written piece, is that marriage is not about political correctness and that minority groups have just as much right to be respected and treated fairly as majority groups.

You still haven’t said WHY marriage should stay as a union just between a man and a woman. You just don’t want this to change.

I married my husband in an entirely non-religious ceremony, with friends and family, and a marriage celebrant. I can’t see any reason at all why such a ceremony shouldn’t be entirely available to a same-sex couple.

Marriage is a celebration and moreover a legally recognised state between two people in a committed long-term relationship and it has dramatic impacts for the children of the relationship. Why should this couple have to be hetrosexual?

It is not political correctness. It’s a human right of equality.

The Badger says:

08:50am | 18/11/10

I knew you couldn’t post a comment without the word union in it

Ted says:

09:12am | 18/11/10

Ok Roger, so based on your argument I can now tell the aboriginals to get lost because we known from archaeological evidence we know that there were at least two human races here before the aboriginals. They are not and never have been the First Australians. So based on your bleeding heart logic I can save this country tens of billions of dollars and cut aboriginal welfare, brilliant!!!!!!!!!

Jim says:

09:14am | 18/11/10

@Brendan…that’s why I said some were fair calls and others were ridiculous. Ridiculous like the push to eliminate the terms male and female connectors for electrical joiners, stop-cock, ball float, King Creole biscuits, the banning of that KFC ad last year, hell - even Noddy got caned because he was ‘feeling a little queer’.

@Alex…as a white, heterosexual male I have had so many things taken away from me. I have continaullay had to modify my behaviour and comments so as not too upset whoever might be within hearing distance that might be from a group with a chip on their shoulder. Have an Aussie flag sticker on your car you get branded a racist. Allow your eyes to look vaguely in the same direction as a Zoo magazine while at a newsagents you get branded an ‘exploiter of women’. Work my arse off for 20 years to get where I am and I ‘only got there cause I’m a man’. Tell a nursury rhyme to my kids and they look at you funny cause they’re told the new ‘enlightened’ version at preschool….

Slowly but surely MY identity is being stripped so that others can find theirs. Marriage is only a word, it’s true, but the whole PC crap has to stop somewhere. Marriage is an institution that’s always been identified as being between a man and a woman. Give gay people every benefit associated with being married - I’m all for that. And in the past where I have had gay people working for me I have not differentiated - family is family. But leave the word alone!

Or what will be next? Getting rid of the words mother and father?

Ish says:

10:42am | 18/11/10

@ Jim, your identity is being stripped? How? Because it’s not nice to be racist, homophobic or sexist? If this is what you link to your identity then I feel very sorry for you.

I hate the argument about nursery rhymes being taken over, what a load of crap! Do you actually have children in pre-school or are you just repeating something that you heard someone say once? My daughter happily sings Baa Baa Black Sheep and Humpty Dumpty and everything else I sang as a kid, no changes. Guess what they also celebrate Christmas and Easter and this is in a very multi-cultural pre-school.

Get a grip, marriage is about celebrating love between two people with their family and friends, at least that’s what it was about in my non-denominational garden wedding.

Darren says:

10:55am | 18/11/10

Different words have different meanings says: You may want to check which dictionary you are quoting. Below description of marriage comes from the Webster dictionary.

noun
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.
b. A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage.
c. A union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage.
d. A common-law marriage.
e. The state or relationship of two adults who are married: Their marriage has been a happy one.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

jasperjen says:

11:05am | 18/11/10

agree whole heartedly,same couples are entitled to the same rights as anyone when it comes to adoption,inheritance,superanution,the right to respect and freedom of their lifestle and acceptance,I have two very close relatives who I now embrace in their lifestyle. But never will I suppport a law that allows the marriage as of a man and a woman.Maybe some sort of civil union could be recognized. As for Adam Brands statement that the majority of society supports this change in law I dont believe it.  If I was in a room of 10 relatives or friends not one would support Gay marriage.As with so many other issues clogging the government these deciisions should not be made by a few hundred politicans time the big issues were put to referendum let the people decide I will accept the umpires decision.

Darren says:

11:16am | 18/11/10

Jim, grow some balls mate. “I’ve had so many things taken from me”. What a load of crap. I’m a gay white aussie male who can not tell anyone because of your pathetic issues about losing your identity. So to save your identity I have to sacrifice mine? So now people want to stand up for their rights the same that you have enjoyed your entire life and you have a problem with that. Lets put women back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant unless of course they can be topless in a bar. Only then will Jim be happy again.

joseph says:

12:06pm | 18/11/10

me me me me me!
“Over the last 20 years we’ve had political correctness rammed down our throats”

Your poor throat! I feel for your throat. It’s had a rough old time.

It’s nothing compared to the rough ride gay people have had just trying to gain some reasonable degree of equality…but your throat deserves a mention too.

Here is a soothing sock.. go on! try it on! does it fit?

Adrian says:

12:22pm | 18/11/10

I have to agree whole-heartedly with Jim. Everything he has said represents my feelings on this issue and people like Brendan who dramatise it and put words in to the mouths of others to illustrate their own agenda, do nothing to help the debate.

Tails says:

01:08pm | 18/11/10

Why not call it garriage and larriage? Or holy mantrimany?

It’s only a frikken name for frik’s sake.

Christie says:

06:20pm | 18/11/10

“Some were fair calls, others border on ridiculous, but all have been to appease a minority group who - to quote the author - had nothing more to offer than “I don’t like it””

So let me see if I’ve got this straight (no pun intended)...

You argue that all these (so-called) politically correct changes over time have come about because a particular minority group had the cheek to say we “don’t like it”. 

Yet at the same time, you don’t want to afford the right to marry to gay couples because you “don’t like it”?

Hypocrite much?

John of Brisbane says:

07:04pm | 18/11/10

Jim
I agree with you. I don’t support the idea that this is a question of equality. Women have been fighting for equality for ever and as such have lost a lot.  I’m not even sure what the issue is. The Gay rights lobby attacks Christians as being their main opponents to this, But I have yet to see one Muslim, athiest, communist country declare legal gay marriage let alone homosexuality. In fact all the countries (and there are not 30 Keren) are countries with a historically Christian background. Are we just an easy target or could it be that we are more tolerant and accepting of all people.  Also whats wrong with being different. If the gays want to use the word marriage, then fine, but I would like my union with my wife to be distinguished from theirs. I don’t mind being different. I have suffered discrimination and abuse all my life and certainly don’t want to be the same as those who treat me like this. 
Celebrate you difference if you must, but don’t try to be the same. The only loser will be you.

Paul McGarry says:

09:22am | 19/11/10

And yet you seem perfectly comfortable with the word ‘gay’ meaning something other than ‘happy’. This suggests that the underlying reason for you objection isn’t merely a desire to hang on to traditional word usage.

The language fight isn’t even a fight you can win, words are defined by how people use them. I know gay people who are married (unfortunately they had to leave their own country to have the ceremony) and that is exactly how people describe them in conversation.

The only sense in which their marriage doesn’t exist (here) is in the strict legal sense and it is this fact that reveals the issues as one of fundamental rights, not mere political correctness.

Equality means equal. It does not mean “for all intents and purposes”. To claim otherwise is to add “but some animals are more equal than others” to “All animals are equal”.

The sky has not fallen in any country that has acknowledged the right of gay marriage. There is no need to fear it. I for one am sure it won’t hurt my marriage to my wife.

Peter says:

07:10am | 18/11/10

There are very good reasons to oppose gay marriage while allowing quite rightly the notion of “civil unions” with the protection of many of those rights Dr Phelps lists. And the main reason is the nature of marriage itself and its function in society.
Marriage is more than a relationship between two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together. Marriage is the building block and fabric of family and society, of the continuance of the human race from generation to generation.
Gay relationships cannot function this way (despite certain medical techniques that may make it technically possible to raise children) and hence should not be given such status. The modern medical means that make it possible for gay couples to raise children testify themselves to the fact that gay relationships are not marriage.
Words do carry meaning and maintaining “marriage” to refer to heterosexual committed relationships that mostly bear children and build society into the future and “civil unions” that refer to homosexual committed relationships that do not implicitly carry that societal function except by some medical “workaround” clearly keeps the significant differences between the two types of relationship in place while protecting those human rights we regard as a part of all committed relationships.
Marriage and gay committed relationships are simply not the same. We ought not to make out like they are by redefining the marriage act to appear to make it so!

Andrew says:

07:28am | 18/11/10

@Peter - So by your description heterosexual couples that are infertile or choose not to have children should have their marriages revoked?

Alex says:

07:38am | 18/11/10

Dear Peter

By your argument, a hetrosexual couple who are unable to have children, or who have IVF treatment, should not be legally ‘married’.
What about the lesbian couple who have a child the ‘traditional’ way with a man? What about hetrosexual couples who have children but aren’t married. Are they suddenly not contributing to the fabric of society?

Marriage is exactly a relationship between two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together. You’ve defined it perfectly - while refuting it!

Connie says:

07:49am | 18/11/10

So following your argument Peter, there should be no first, second, third marriages for heterosexual couples past their child bearing age. Nor for heterosexual couples who are infertile & can perhaps only conceive children thanks to “modern medical means”....your argument is ridiculous.

Jeremy says:

08:04am | 18/11/10

Oh, come on. Obviously conceiving kids isn’t what defines a marriage, or we’d have to have a different word for post-menopausal marriages.

Oh, look! Your argument just collapsed!

Tim says:

08:10am | 18/11/10

@Peter: Unless I’m reading it wrong, gay partners can’t have kids naturally, so they should not be allowed to marry? Is that it? I have to say that’s a pretty bad excuse. Who cares if they can’t have kids naturally? Even if Gay Marriage was never made legal, these people will still continue to be gay, and still not have natural kids. All that these people want is for people to recognize them as a family, by both the public, and the government, so they can get all the benefits of being a married couple.

Nothing wrong with that.

AliceC says:

08:29am | 18/11/10

@Peter

My husband and I are married (non-religous ceremony) and we are not having children. Does that make our marriage null and void, and we are not pro-creating???? What about infertile couples who cannot naturally concieve?

marruiage isn’t about making hetero and homosexual remationships ‘the same’, it’s about recognising the union of two people who love each other, and want the government to recognise it too.

Expanding the marriage act will not hurt anyone, nor will heterosexual relationships be considered any less significant because of it.

Laura says:

08:35am | 18/11/10

Based on Peter’s argument, those heterosexual couples who cannot have children due to medical reasons who also utilise the same “certain medical techniques that may make it technically possible to raise children” should not be defined as married either under the marriage act and also shouldn’t be entitled to the same rights that married couples are entitled to.
Same thing applies to married heterosexual couples who choose not to have children.
You can’t have it both ways…

Danny B says:

08:39am | 18/11/10

@ Peter

There are hetrosexual couples who are unable to have children naturally, which means they need to rely on these ‘modern medical techniques’ to have children.  By your logic, they should also be banned from marriage.

As mentioned in the article above, the marriage act was only amended to disallow gay marriage in 2004.  It was happening before then - where are the negative consequences of this?

Oh, there aren’t any.

Trevor says:

08:40am | 18/11/10

@Peter, you obviously underwent a fertility test before getting married to ensure that you could contnue the human race from generation to generation. But you were under no legal obligation to do so.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:45am | 18/11/10

Peter :  You have stated the case very well indeed .
The gay marriage push is an attempt by gays to negate the fundamental function of marriage. They will never win with there intent to foist gay marriage on the community as being natural and normal to share with the normality of hetrosexual marriage.
The order of nature rules supreme in that there can never be any procreational intent in gay marriage.

Sam says:

09:21am | 18/11/10

Peter, you failed to mention the damage done to children growing up in same sex relationships. The fact that they are even allowed to care for children is a sick joke at the least given their idea of a relationship precludes any NATURAL way of having children. But before those losers out there mention IVF, you are just trying a pathetic attempt to distract from the fact that same sex relationships do not bear fruit together.

Steely Dan says:

09:33am | 18/11/10

@ Peter

“Marriage is the building block and fabric of family and society, of the continuance of the human race from generation to generation.
Gay relationships cannot function this way…”
Even if I granted you that bizarre first premise, Peter - how would a gay marriage affect the function of hetero marriages?

“Sorry darling, now that the gays can get married, we can’t be building blocks of society anymore.  I’m off to feed my new meth addiction!”

PaulB says:

10:04am | 18/11/10

There you go again Wayne.  “Order of Nature”.  Didn’t think it through before you got to this point I see.  Just come out and say it.  “its an abominition in the sight of Goooood!!!”

LC says:

10:18am | 18/11/10

@Peter - so if marriage is designed to continue the human race through heterosexual unions, why allow a man and a woman to marry if they can’t have kids together? Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman adopted when they were married for 11 years - was that union invalid? And what about senior citizens - why should they be allowed to marry if they won’t produce more children? Should heterosexual couples have fertility tests before they are allowed to marry? How are they different to same-sex couples using these newfangled “medical techniques”, or fostering, or adopting?

Your argument has massive holes, and we can your prejudices seeping through them.

Tim says:

12:43pm | 18/11/10

I Love the people here supporting gay marriage who are quite willing to compare being gay to having a disease or a genetic defect.
hmmm so being gay is the same as having a disease is it?

Steely Dan says:

01:10pm | 18/11/10

@ Tim

“Love the people here supporting gay marriage who are quite willing to compare being gay to having a disease or a genetic defect.”
Are you saying it’s wrong to have these diseases or genetic defects?

Tim says:

04:12pm | 18/11/10

Obviously not Steely Dan.
But if someone were to say that being gay was a genetic defect on this thread the same people here comparing it to one would be outraged.

Sarah says:

09:20am | 19/11/10

@ Wayne

For my own curiosity .... can I ask why you are the person to dictate the “order of nature”?
I understand your opposition. Procreation is a natural event. But marriage is not a “natural” occurrence - it is a man-made, human-enforced idea. Whether you believe it came from God or not, we as humans instilled it into our culture.

As a gay lady, I would be equally as happy to have a “civil union” as I would a “marriage”, as long as my civil union came with the same legal rights as your marriage. That means that changing my surname, my children having the same surname as their parents (amazingly, just because I’m gay doesn’t mean my ovaries have shriveled up), and being able to make medical decisions if my partner was hospitalised. Give me the right to care for my family as I would give you the right to care for yours.

In addition .... can I stress that, while a lot of people consider marriage as the building block of family life, there are many families with seperated parents, defacto parents, single mothers, single fathers, even grandparents as guardians. Similarly, just because a family has a mommy and a daddy doesn’t make it a successful family.

I would never condone those family units just because they were “not natural”.....

Old Sailor says:

07:37am | 18/11/10

People who are opposed to homosexual marriage are not homophobic, they are normal people, it is the homosexuals who are homophobic. If they are abnormal why should they want to participate in a normal procedure.

Fred says:

07:40am | 18/11/10

Typical crap one expects from a minority group. If I can’t get my way I am being discriminated against. Act like and adault or shut up.

Markus says:

08:14am | 18/11/10

The main argument used in favour of gay marriage is that anyone against it must be a homophobe and get over it.

The reason why the current government is “scared of a few poofter bashers” is because despite the recent Galaxy poll, they are more than confident that those opposed more than make up the majority of the voters.
You honestly think in this era of pandering politics, that both major parties would not be on this bandwagon if they thought it was what the majority wanted?

Smidgeling says:

09:21am | 18/11/10

Oldsailor- Why do you define gay as abnormal? Because there’s more straight people? That logic says that people with a uni degree are abnormal because more people don’t have a degree.

Fred- Gays are being denied the right to do something everyone else can. That IS discrimination at it’s core.

I’m a straight guy and I see no reason why gay people can’t marry each other and be miserable just like straight people. It doesn’t make any difference to straight marriages and it doesn’t hurt anyone. What’s the problem?

Vivian says:

09:32am | 18/11/10

If opponents of marriage equality are able to back their reasons as to why gays and lesbians cannot get married with logic rather than ‘just because’ comments, then perhaps we will take their comments seriously and not consider them homophobes.

Additionally Old Sailor, Fred and Markus - refering to gays and lesbians as ‘abnormal’, ‘homophobic’, and insinuating that they are spouting ‘typical crap’ because they aren’t getting their way simply makes you sound even more discriminatory and homophobic.

Steely Dan says:

09:37am | 18/11/10

@ Fred

“Typical crap one expects from a minority group. If I can’t get my way I am being discriminated against.”
They are being discriminated against, Fred.  That’s a pretty compelling reason to assert that there’s discrimination going on…

“Act like and adault or shut up.”
Act like an adult and spell correctly.

Jim says:

10:41am | 18/11/10

Pretty pathetic Steely Dan. Just be cause someone says no to a demand does not automatically apply discrimination as you want to use it. So, to exaggerate as minority groups and bleeding hearts do, if I want to rape a woman and the community says no, by your logic I am being discriminated against. By the way, the sign that someone is on a loosing argument is to point out a spelling or grammatical error.

Vivian, by pointing out the obvious behavior of minority groups only goes to show an ability to raise above being bullied by people that have no idea how irrational their victim mentality has become. You need to see a shrink to help you.

trixie melodian says:

12:55pm | 18/11/10

@Jim
*losing

Steely Dan says:

01:06pm | 18/11/10

@ Jim

“Pretty pathetic Steely Dan. Just be cause someone says no to a demand does not automatically apply discrimination as you want to use it.”
I didn’t say it’s discrimination because someone didn’t get what they wanted - it’s discrimination because people are being denied equal treatment under the law on the basis of their sexual preference.

“So, to exaggerate as minority groups and bleeding hearts do, if I want to rape a woman and the community says no, by your logic I am being discriminated against.”
I was being facetious.  You mean you didn’t pick up on that?  Would you like to name what rights we poor white guys have lost?

“By the way, the sign that someone is on a loosing argument is to point out a spelling or grammatical error.”
I disagree.  If I wasn’t addressing your weak points and just criticising the way you wrote it, then you might have a case.
And it’s ‘losing’.

Jim says:

01:21pm | 18/11/10

Please note that there is a second Jim appearing….Steely that wasn’t me.

Anyways…@CJ - ‘homophobia’ is a word gay people use like a badge of honour. Phobia implies a fear…why over-dramaticise something?

Steely Dan says:

02:04pm | 18/11/10

“Please note that there is a second Jim appearing….Steely that wasn’t me”
I thought there might be.  I think there’s also a couple of ‘Tims’ and ‘Peters’ too…

Jeremy Rogers says:

01:32pm | 23/11/10

Both major parties have significant dealings with the ACL who are opposed to gay marriage.  This quote was taken directly from the ACL’s website.
“Christians should take confidence that Julia Gillard made an unequivocal promise on gay marriage, not only to maintain the party policy that marriage is between a man and a woman as long as she is the leader, but also not to trade it off if the Greens hold the balance of power.”

Until we have a government that beleives they have enough support behind gay marriage that when they pass legislation they won’t be booted out of office things will remain the way they are and with the amount of pull the ACL seems to have on both major parties it looks like it will be a while.

Alex says:

07:42am | 18/11/10

The proposal is to change that definition to protect the rights of all groups. I’ve yet to hear anyone say coherently and clearly why marriage should stay as a union between a man and a woman.

You’re just telling me that’s the way it is. I know what it is. The proposal is to change what it is. Give me a good reason WHY that shouldn’t be changed, seeing as we’ve heard many reasons why it should be.

majority says:

07:46am | 18/11/10

Yes. Agree

Biteme says:

09:02am | 18/11/10

Alex, what other definitions you want to change? Maybe blue, green, or maybe God, or man or women too. Go and research the word sacrosanct.

david j says:

09:11am | 18/11/10

Hey Biteme , if marriage is so sacrosant why are there so many divorces. Shouldnt it be until death.

Jim says:

09:17am | 18/11/10

Give us a reason why it should change Alex? Don’t use the human rights thing…there are no ‘rights’ being violated.

If anything, the rights of heterosexual caucasian males have been destroyed over the course of the last 30 years.

RGG says:

09:29am | 18/11/10

100s of years hey? Newsflash: Christianity has existed for approximately 2000 years. Marriage has existed for at least 8000. And you can bet your arse that it wasn’t “one man one woman” for all those years.

AliceC says:

09:45am | 18/11/10

@Biteme

Only men were allowed to vote for thousands of years, with women being granted the right only a century ago. I bet there were a few peeved off men who didn’t want this to happen ‘because that’s the way it’s been for thousands of years’.

Slavery had been accepted as the norm for a very long time, should we have no abolished that too?

@Jim

‘If anything, the rights of heterosexual caucasian males have been destroyed over the course of the last 30 years’

What rights are we discussing here? Please elaborate…

Steely Dan says:

09:49am | 18/11/10

@ Jim

“Don’t use the human rights thing…there are no ‘rights’ being violated.”
The right to be treated equally isn’t valid, eh Jim?

“If anything, the rights of heterosexual caucasian males have been destroyed over the course of the last 30 years.”
That’s true actually.  Whatever happened to the right to rape our wives?  I guess that’s something those ‘feminazis’ took off us, right Jim? 

Name a right that we’ve lost.

Sally says:

11:59am | 18/11/10

It’s amazing Alex, every time you post a comment asking for proper reason why the law shouldn’t be changed, a whole stack of people reply in exactly the way you accused them of arguing.

I’m wondering if you’re posting these comments yourself just to prove a point.  Surely people aren’t that stupid.  This was a very simple trick.

Jay says:

02:13pm | 18/11/10

‘Sacrosanct’ used to include the taking of slaves and burning of widows on their husbands funeral pyres in some cultures.

Tradition is not a valid excuse, the zeitgeist continues.

KH says:

07:29am | 18/11/10

I don’t think they randomly pull them from the white pages….......to select a sample group there are a lot of things taken into account - socio demographic areas, age, etc.  Generally, any reputable company would have methods of ascertaining this information.

StefanR says:

07:38am | 18/11/10

It’s called statistics: assuming that the sample is randomly selected, 1000 people out of a population of 10 million will give much the same accuracy as 1000 people out of 300 million.

StefanR says:

07:40am | 18/11/10

You’re not asking the government to look after all Australians, you are asking the government to look after all Australians who are like you. Selfish indeed.

TrueOz says:

09:20am | 18/11/10

@PK

...and took the cheque straight to the pool room!

Barry says:

08:54am | 18/11/10

Hahaha so true.

Gavin says:

09:47am | 19/11/10

Well, can you argue otherwise? Whatever the objection to gay marriage, no matter how articulate, the arguments are always without exception bred from prejudice. There is no other explanation.

Darren says:

11:21am | 18/11/10

Jack, gay people have been parents since the dawn of time. It is not a new concept. You have just been living under a rock.

v says:

01:49pm | 18/11/10

And so the contagion and abomination continues. Doesn’t make it natural however Darren. Nature always has the occasional mistake.

Jeremy says:

08:08am | 18/11/10

In what way is a gay marriage not a marriage? Please, outline these specific differences, and remember that many infertile heterosexual people get married.

NEFFA says:

08:45am | 18/11/10

hahahhahaha - i think ths is the first time i’ve ever agreed with you Eric. Thanks for the laugh

Clare says:

09:37am | 18/11/10

This gay argument is like a soccer player joining an AFL team and then expecting the rules of AFL to look like soccer. Jeremy the answer to your question takes one brain cell, look at the definition. You have been given a description “civil union”, get past your victim mentality and use it. By the way, mentioning infertile couples is a pathetic smoke screen, since they have the correct combination of equipment to produce a baby if everything works. Two males or females do not make a set and therefore lack even the natural set of equipment to have kids. Thus if you truly believe in a gay life style option, you should never be allowed to have or look after kids.

AliceC says:

09:49am | 18/11/10

@Eric

‘You can pass a law defining my cat as a dog, but it still won’t bark.’

Indeed, but it won’t have any negative implication on all other dogs, will it?

Steely Dan says:

09:51am | 18/11/10

@ Eric

Do you need your cat to bark?

Jeremy says:

10:37am | 18/11/10

So, Clare, you can’t point to a single specific difference between a gay marriage and a heterosexual marriage.

QED.

Trevor says:

11:26am | 18/11/10

Or you can pass a law defining pets that includes both cats and dogs.

The key question, Eric, is what level of categorisation do you actually think is important and significant?  Are you trying to run a Dog Show or a Pet Show?

Clare says:

01:55pm | 18/11/10

QED, Jeremy is style in denial. Read a dictionary, then tell me when you get over your dilussions.

Eric says:

05:07pm | 18/11/10

I’m disappointed. Nobody said they could make my cat go “woof”.

St. Michael says:

06:18pm | 18/11/10

@ Eric: I rather prefer to make the dog go “meow”.

Rude Rodney says:

12:24am | 19/11/10

Eric: I couldn’t make your ewe turn, but I could make her eyes bulge!
©Rodney Rude

Daniel says:

06:22am | 19/11/10

Eric I can make your cat go WOOF!

Petrol and a match.

Ricky Bobby says:

08:45am | 19/11/10

Trevor says:11:26am | 18/11/10

Or you can pass a law defining pets that includes both cats and dogs.

The key question, Eric, is what level of categorisation do you actually think is important and significant?  Are you trying to run a Dog Show or a Pet Show?

Trev, you can pass all the laws you like, but no cat has a place in a dog show, regardless of how loud it meows.

Michael says:

10:01am | 19/11/10

Clare, your uneducated argument has given me cause to drastically change my plans. See, I was hoping to see my friends in the UK for Christmas, but alas, I lack the natural attributes to fly.

Then I thought about scuba diving in the deep ocean, but alas, for I lack the natural attributes to be able to breathe in oxygen under water.

As for landing on the moon, just forget it!

What a shame that human beings don’t have the ability to manipulate the environment and resources to construct something that would give them the ability to do something they would not naturally be able to do…

Farmer says:

07:37am | 18/11/10

“we are producing and raising children in vast numbers” ?????? Really? All on your own? Wow, I’m impressed. Just think of how easy it will be for us livestock farmers in the future - no need to buy stud stock or worry about the intricacies of keeping the bulls out of the neighbours heifers. Spare a thought for the stud stock industry, though. Maybe we can come up with a way of getting bulls to reproduce without cows…

“Australia’s current stance on gay marriage is now an international embarrassment and a legal nightmare for couples here” - who says? Oh, Kerryn Phelps does! There is NO legal problem. If you wish to will property or money to someone, go ahead and have the gumption to do so. But also be prepared to inform your families of your wishes before you toddle off - just as you should in any relationship. No-one likes a nasty surprise and people in homosexual relationships have an obligation to their families, friends and the partner to ‘share’ that person with everyone. If you can’t do that while you are alive, don’t expect those who are left to do it for you.

Generally speaking, people in homosexual (let’s stop with the euphemisms) relationships are more preoccupied with themselves and their “rights”. Rights to what, I ask?

T.Chong says:

08:17am | 18/11/10

Joan, no one is attacking het marriage , so why is the exclusive use of the word a het “right” , that you seek to exclude others from ?
Is a dictionary ( which brand BTW ? ) is the sole arbiter on language use?
Since when is a dictionary a codified law, that cannot be varied from?
And , the Mardi Gras is not some gay “rite”, it is a noun for their party / celebration, and I am yet to read of any gay / lesbian group that wants to exclude hets from using the word.

Mike says:

10:25am | 18/11/10

@Joan
Disagree ... love and the expression and commitment of that love is not just a Hetero right!!  Gays is Australia do not have Unions (get the facts) nor are their overseas Marriages or Unions recognised in Australia.  The best on offer is a register of their Partnership at a state level where applicable.
@Farmer
Yeah now after years of campaigning there are fewer legal issues and what nasty surprise that the family finds out they are gay??? this is most likely because the family has been so antigay that persons whole life they they were too scared to come out. Being involved in legal circles, I have seen many cases where the family had disowned the gay member and when they passed would seek to overturn the will leaving the partner nothing and the law was on their side!!!!
Preoccupied with themselves, sheesh, moral majority much ... it’s fine for those of you in the majority when you have all the rights because you have no idea what it is like.  I work 80 hours a week, pay my taxes, play sport, donate to charities, and don’t even have as much as a parking ticket to my name.  I’m gay, and a second class citizen in this country.  I love my niece and nephew more than anything on this planet and would one day love to give them some cousins but I have less rights to do so than hetero dole bludging junkies who get paid too!! 

But I still dare to dream.

Nicole says:

11:04am | 18/11/10

Mike I have always found it bemusing that a so-called committed gay wants children given it is incompatible with your chosen life style. Maybe you are not as gay as your group wants you to be. Return from the Dark Side.

Joan says:

02:32pm | 18/11/10

Even the illiterate understand what marriage means , no need for dictionary… tradition, custom, rites ... marriage is hetero in our society and many other world societies… only the gays this past 10 years quibble with that. Hetero marriage is not an essential to express love and commitment to another.

Samual says:

09:01am | 18/11/10

The line “What it is not about is religion.” is wrong. It is the basis of the sticking point most people have.

Sparkling white wine can only be called Champagne if produced in the Champagne region, otherwise it is exaclty the same in evey other respect.

I have zero issues with a legally binding agreement that gives their partner every right afforded to hetrosexual couples who get legally bound, but not comfortable with the appopriation of the word with its religious connotations.

It is just being respectful to highly held values of another group. To insist on the appropiation of the word marriage just seems like a pissing contest. Kerri states that there is no legitamate reason to deny the word marriage, but I haven’t heard a legitamate reason to change the word marriage from it’s historical basis.

Steely Dan says:

10:02am | 18/11/10

@ Samual

“but not comfortable with the appopriation of the word with its religious connotations.”
Samual, passing legislation that allows gay marriage won’t force religions to accept the marriage.  Chruches can - and do - turn away interracial couples and inter-faith couples from being married in their houses of worship. 

If you think that ‘marriage’ is an exclusively religious term, then the state has no right to give marriage licences to any couple.

Trevor says:

11:28am | 18/11/10

@Samual, the reason for giving Champagne a specific name is because it is seen as being superior in quality to other white sparkling wines.

So, are you saying that heterosexual unions are superior in quality to homosexual ones?

Samual says:

01:28pm | 18/11/10

Steely Dan
“then the state has no right to give marriage licences to any couple.”

I would be fine with the term marriage being removed from our secular legislation. They do not issue a kiddushin licence to Jews or a shadi licence to Hindu’s.

Trevor says “are you saying that heterosexual unions are superior in quality to homosexual”

Are you always this moronic?

The Champagne name was reclaimed as part of a French initiative to reclaim IP. In the same way they have claimed Bordeaux, Bourgogne and the other French wine regions.

Steely Dan says:

01:41pm | 18/11/10

@ Samual

“I would be fine with the term marriage being removed from our secular legislation.”
Best of luck with that, I’m sure that would be a popular move.  Marriage pre-dates most religions being practiced today - it’s certainly older than Christianity.  To say that it’s necessarily a religious institution seems a bizarre claim.

samual says:

02:46pm | 18/11/10

Binding ceremonies have indeed existed for longer than Christainity, Judaism or Kabbal but the version of ‘marriage’ which our laws draw on is the judeo-christian version. Hence my aversion to use the word when it is so sacred to religions. Most religions also mix god into the definition of marriage, but no one has picked up on that yet.

Also until recently most females were property of the males so if there was a ceremony, it wasn’t for the celebration of love.

CJ says:

07:34am | 18/11/10

I agree Jim.  If they do pass ‘gay’ marriage - I only foresee lots of jubliant and happy people.  Now thats has to be good!

Jeremy says:

08:10am | 18/11/10

Bestiality is wrong, for one thing, because an animal can’t express consent.

Barry says:

09:05am | 18/11/10

@Jeremy
You should get up to speed with current ethical thinking, although I think it’s a joke.  Peter Singer, the “great” Australian ethicist, argues that as long as the experience is mutually pleasurable for both parties, than beastiality is fine and dandy.  Then again he also thinks that killing a newborn baby is not that same as killing an adult person, and denies that it is necessarily wrong to take innocent, human life.

Devils Advocate says:

09:13am | 18/11/10

You already have humans that have a more loving relationship with their pet than the do with other humans so why would you deny them their right to be happy?

TrueOz says:

09:51am | 18/11/10

@Devils Advocate

Yeah - I saw that on the internet - yeeeech!

TrueOz says:

09:57am | 18/11/10

@the apologist

If Dennis Denuto is reading this he’ll be waaaaaaaay pissed that he didn’t have you assisting on his case with the Kerrigans. All that stuff about Romans and the Bible - it’s gotta be right up there with “the vibe” as a sound legal argument.

Steely Dan says:

09:58am | 18/11/10

@ the apologist

“Better remove the foundational paragraph of our constitution then - since religion has no place.”
We agree then!  Read S116, apologist - that bit’s actually binding, too.  You lost the fight for a Christian nation in 1901.

“We dismiss our consciences at our peril, and a continual slide into immorality on a national scale is increasingly inevitable.”
My conscience tells me all humans are equal.  My conscience also tells me that Leviticus 20:13 promotes bigotry and murder.

the apologist says:

10:23am | 18/11/10

@True Oz: the Biblical framework provides for the possibility of morals. What’s your alternative? Legal frameworks (which at base are moral frameworks - or at least based on moral frameworks) are meaningless and built on sinking sand when you take our Creator out of the picture.

You express distaste at beastiality, but where are your grounds for saying it’s wrong? what about removing legal discrimination for those who hold a different mind on the matter to yours?

TrueOz says:

10:38am | 18/11/10

@the apologist

1. My alternative (if you’d read my other comments) is for government to simply get out of the way and permit people to form relationship styles of their own choosing. What could possibly be more moral?

2. I did express distaste for bestiality, but never so much as hinted that I thought it might be wrong. Frankly, it’s not something I’ve given sufficient thought to have made such a decision. Disturbingly, you have.

the apologist says:

10:51am | 18/11/10

@Steely Dan:
You’ve demonstrated a mis-understanding of s116, which recognises the distinction between the institution of the Church and the State, and was designed to stop any Christian denomination from holding favour as a national denomination (the state’s retained the right to do this however). While it recognised the separate roles of the Church and the State and barred the cross-over of them both, it did not separate Christianity and the State (clearly i.e. first para). We were a Christian nation in 1901, there is no doubt about that.

If you had read Rom1, you would also have seen that our consciences have become corrupted as a result of our rejection of God. Our consciences do convict us of right and wrong and let us know that we often do the wrong thing, but because of our rebellion, they are often twisted against what is right when we are left to ourselves. Thus, for e.g. any number of Germans involved in the Holocaust may have been convinced that they were doing the right thing, and thus we have reconstructed our morals on sexuality at the present time.

Steely Dan says:

11:01am | 18/11/10

@ the apologist

“What’s your alternative? Legal frameworks (which at base are moral frameworks - or at least based on moral frameworks) are meaningless and built on sinking sand when you take our Creator out of the picture.”
We’ve discussed this before, apologist.  Your notion that laws need a God backing them to be valid has been blown out of the water time and time again.

“You express distaste at beastiality, but where are your grounds for saying it’s wrong?”
Animals can’t give consent. 

What’s your grounds for saying paedophilia is wrong?  Or slavery?

the apologist says:

01:12pm | 18/11/10

@TrueOz: I didn’t read your other comments, so thanks for re-iterating them.
1. Why is it moral for people to be able to form relationships of their own choosing?
2. I used beastiality as an example because I presumed that it was something that was so universally wrong that regardless of what moral framework you use we should have been able to agree on it. It seems that that was too much to presume. For my part, the levitical laws outlaw beastiality, and that’s enough for me - but I can’t honestly say i’ve given it much thought past that either.

Steely Dan says:

01:23pm | 18/11/10

@ the apologist

“...was designed to stop any Christian denomination from holding favour as a national denomination (the state’s retained the right to do this however).”
Where does it say that?  Can you see the word ‘Christian’ in the Constitution?  I do see this though: ‘The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion’.  That’s right - ‘any religion’, not ‘any Christian denomination’. 

‘The Commonwealth shall not make any law… imposing any religious observance’.  Refusing to allow gay marriage because it clashes with your theology is in direct violation of Section 116.

“We were a Christian nation in 1901, there is no doubt about that.”
We were a Christian nation in the same way we were a white nation.  Would you say we’re officially a white nation?

“If you had read Rom1, you would also have seen that our consciences have become corrupted as a result of our rejection of God.”
I’ve read it.  And I don’t buy it.  And I know that you can’t impose your religious observances on me.  So proselytise all you want, but I’m not listening.

the apologist says:

02:14pm | 18/11/10

@Steel Dan: yes, we have discussed this many times, and I could say the same about your arguments from my perspective (although I’ve always appreciated that you are polite at least). I wasn’t at all convinced that you ever established anything like a positive argument for morals being anything other than subjective from your atheistic perspective.

Humour me just once more if you will, and I will try to reframe this question and my position one more time for you to answer.

The basic atheist position goes something like this: the universe is purely materialistic and is the result of naturalistic forces, and we are here by chance (a proposition which I think is impossible, but I won’t go into that here).

If this is the universe we live in, which you suppose, a number of undeniable consequences follow for the existence of morals.

From a physical perspective, moral values are a development that is no more significant than any other chemical reaction in the universe. They are no more significant than a mud puddle, neither is any particular action. Murder amounts to basically the same thing as tying your shoelace, they are both just matter in motion. This being the case, anything other than unrestrained freedom for each person to act in any way they deem to be moral is moral tyranny. There are no grounds on which you can reasonably call someone else’s conduct wrong.

The other implication is that moral perceptions only exist in our minds. There is no such thing as right, there is no such thing as wrong, there is only our perception of either (which is the result of chemical reactions). Given that they only exist in our minds, it also follows that they are subjective, as no two people have the same values of right and wrong. So apart from the fact that right and wrong actions can’t be established from a scientific perspective,

So tell me, in a universe like that, how are you going to reasonably establish the notion of laws, morals, and the obligation of anyone to keep them? What is your grounds for saying paedophilia or slavery is wrong? (for example)

You asked me to argue my case using paedophilia and slavery as an example – but I might do that once you’ve addressed my argument above to try and the thread a bit less convoluted. Not trying to avoid it, just trying to keep it coherent.

True Believer says:

03:22pm | 18/11/10

Apologist.

Good post, makes a lot more sense than some of the posts I have read here.  I would not hold you breath for Steely Dan to answer you question though. He is very good at stating his case as to why others are wrong but not so willing to justify his worldview.

Steely Dan says:

03:26pm | 18/11/10

@ the apologist

“I wasn’t at all convinced that you ever established anything like a positive argument for morals being anything other than subjective from your atheistic perspective. “
That’s because - as previously discussed - your definition of ‘morality’ includes the word ‘divine’ in it.  You reject all ethical systems that do not claim divine guidance.

“The basic atheist position goes something like this: the universe is purely materialistic and is the result of naturalistic forces”
That we know of.  Correct.

“From a physical perspective… Murder amounts to basically the same thing as tying your shoelace, they are both just matter in motion.”
Physics doesn’t have a perspective.  But sure.

“This being the case, anything other than unrestrained freedom for each person to act in any way they deem to be moral is moral tyranny.”
Actually, you’ve skipped a lot.  You haven’t demonstrated that tyranny is bad.

“The other implication is that moral perceptions only exist in our minds. There is no such thing as right, there is no such thing as wrong, there is only our perception of either (which is the result of chemical reactions).”
Correction: There is such thing as right, and there is such thing as wrong, and they are based on our perceptions.

“Given that they only exist in our minds, it also follows that they are subjective, as no two people have the same values of right and wrong.”
Correct!  But we can establish basic near-universal truths (eg. nobody likes being hurt), and make logical (not emotional) assessments of actions to determine which best helps us achieve universal aims (eg. the elimination of suffering).

“So apart from the fact that right and wrong actions can’t be established from a scientific perspective”
Not quite.  We can frequently establish - using the scientific method - which actions are most likely to help us reach our societal goals.

“What is your grounds for saying paedophilia or slavery is wrong?”
Easy.  Paedophilia - in the vast, vast majority of cases - is detrimental to the wellbeing of the abuse victim (ie. it causes them pain - physical and/or emotional).  Constraining the rights of the adult to abuse the child is justified as the pain of being an abuse victim is judged to be far greater than the paedophile’s pain from having their actions constrained.  Slavery is the same - it might help the slave-owner, but the loss to the slave in a pro-slavery situation is far greater than the loss of the would-be slave-owner.  We submit to these laws because the vast majority would prefer to live in a world where we would never be abused as children, or enslaved.

Now, why do you feel slavery and pedophilia are wrong?

the apologist says:

03:58pm | 18/11/10

@Steely Dan:

Christianity was assumed in national life at the time in the legislation (not the case today obviously). Australia was 96.6% Christian in 1901, and the opening words of the Constitution demonstrate the clear assumption of the corporate faith of the nation (…humbly relying on Almighty God…). So yes, I see the word Christian all over the Constitution from the foundation – it was constructed as a Christian document by Christian men (seriously, take a look at the profiles of the men who constructed it – Christian men each one of them). Not to mention that you can’t ignore the wealth of historical evidence that clearly demonstrates the explicitly Christian nature of our nation in its early decades. No other religion was really taken into consideration because it was basically a non-issue at the time.

Regulating religion was a state matter (as s116 established), and it’s easy to see that the denominational issues are the main sorts of issues that were around at the time. For example, there was early legislation dealing with the establishment of any denomination in NSW and establishing legal equity between members of different denominations (para 3 http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A020299b.htm). Again, other religions were basically not in the framework.

But yes, I won’t deny that the section also covers other religions as well (clearly the right to life of people of all faiths was upheld); but given the context, it’s easy to see that the emphasis was on establishing equality between Christian denominations in the new nation(whether Catholic, or some other brand of protestant, etc).

“Refusing to allow gay marriage because it clashes with your theology is in direct violation of Section 116”. By that line of reasoning, establishing the Constitution itself with the words ‘humbly relying on Almighty God’ is a direct violation of s116. Also, the establishment of marriage as it has existed for our nation’s history in legislation has apparently been clashing with s116 the entire time. I hope you see that this line of reasoning is a serious misunderstanding of the section.

“We were a Christian nation in the same way we were a white nation.  Would you say we’re officially a white nation?” As I’ve said NOW we’re neither a Christian nation or a white nation – although the legacy of both can be seen even now. I wouldn’t necessarily argue that being a white nation is a particularly moral position however.

Ps. I wouldn’t want to impose religious observances on you (observances certainly aren’t at the centre of religion), I don’t want to proselytise you (although from my perspective I must say that I find it sad when people reject God to their hurt – naturally you don’t see it that way). Your life, your decisions.

Steely Dan says:

04:30pm | 18/11/10

@ the apologist

“Christianity was assumed in national life at the time in the legislation (not the case today obviously). Australia was 96.6% Christian in 1901 and the opening words of the Constitution demonstrate the clear assumption of the corporate faith of the nation”
Yet they stuffed up and forgot to omit that pesky S116?

“So yes, I see the word Christian all over the Constitution from the foundation – it was constructed as a Christian document by Christian men”
So, the short answer is ‘No the word doesn’t appear in the Constitution’.

“seriously, take a look at the profiles of the men who constructed it – Christian men each one of them”
Christian men can still recognise and promote secular government.  Want proof?  S116.

“but given the context, it’s easy to see that the emphasis was on establishing equality between Christian denominations in the new nation”
Given the context?  Tell me, where do you think the text of S116 was plagiarised from?

“By that line of reasoning, establishing the Constitution itself with the words ‘humbly relying on Almighty God’ is a direct violation of s116.”
It is.  It should be removed.  S116 is binding and therefore has precedence.

“Also, the establishment of marriage as it has existed for our nation’s history in legislation has apparently been clashing with s116 the entire time.”
It has. 

“I wouldn’t necessarily argue that being a white nation is a particularly moral position however.”
Of course it isn’t!!

TrueOz says:

09:03pm | 18/11/10

@the apologist

1. You’re right. Other people who are my moral and intellectual superiors know far better than me what I should do. Why I might presume otherwise is beyond me.

2. I am absolutely stunned (of course) to learn that all of the thinking has already been done for you. I expected no less from a man with such sharp opinions. The Bible says so - end of argument - I get it.

the apologist says:

01:11pm | 19/11/10

@Steely Dan:

Part 1

The reason I reject all ethical systems that do not claim divine guidance is because there are certain logical implications for ethical systems if the universe is the naturalistic universe that you and all atheists seem to suppose that it is (i.e. morals are a nonsense concept, don’t matter, and are not at all binding to a self-conscious being who recognises them for what they are – the result of chemical processes). I do not think that ethical reality as we experience it is consistent with the theory that the universe is what atheists suppose, I think that ethical reality as we know it is consistent with the Biblical worldview.

What’s astounding to me is that you’ve agreed with the implications that I outlined in my previous post, and yet still seem to think that the moral framework that you’ve constructed is legitimate.

You say that physics don’t have a perspective, and yet physics is all there is if the universe is purely materialistic/naturalistic. Thus talk of morals judgments (which you seem happy to make) is nonsense and in truth they are merely some chemical reaction that occurs in our brains. From this perspective I can argue that any action I or anyone else undertakes is equally a-moral, and you’ve got no grounds to refute me on.

I made the comment that tyranny is bad based upon my ethical framework, you can’t do that from yours. You’ve got no grounds on which to say any given action is wrong. The logical implication of your position is that tyranny just is. Hitler’s fascist dictatorship can be no more or less moral than the Australian democratic system.

You attempted to correct me and say there is such a thing as ‘right’ because it exists in our minds. Right doesn’t exist (or wrong), what exists is a chemical process. Even if this chemical process tends towards most people agreeing on the desire to avoid pain and pursue pleasure, that still doesn’t logically entail that we have a moral imperative to avoid hurting others. At best, it implies that it may be subjectively beneficial to agree to avoid hurting each other out of self-interest. The only logical thing that entails out of having a self-interest to avoid pain is that each person avoids pain – it does not necessarily infer that there is a moral dimension to causing pain to others – particularly if causing pain gives pleasure. Hurting others is still just as legitimate an action as submitting oneself to a social contract. The only question is who will win out.

So when you say someone’s tendency towards peadophilia is wrong (incidentally, how about necrophilia? you might find it difficult to argue that that one’s ‘wrong’), you can’t properly say it’s wrong, you can only say that it’s wrong based on your opinion. Someone else’s opinion may be that it’s right. The reality is that both of you have simply come to that conclusion based upon some causative chemical process in each of your minds. Neither is more or less legit than the other, they just are – and the position with the most adherents then wins by reason of force.

Comments on my opinion on slavery and peadophilia to follow…

the apologist says:

01:15pm | 19/11/10

@Steely Dan:

re. s116

You’ve admitted the validity of my argument unwittingly, but completely missed the point. Two of your comments demonstrate this.

“By that line of reasoning, establishing the Constitution itself with the words ‘humbly relying on Almighty God’ is a direct violation of s116.”
It is.  It should be removed.  S116 is binding and therefore has precedence.
“Also, the establishment of marriage as it has existed for our nation’s history in legislation has apparently been clashing with s116 the entire time.”
It has. 

You admit that from your perspective (which you unwittingly and stubbornly presume to be identical to that of the founding fathers when they penned s116) the founding paragraph of the constitution (!), and marriage legislation (not to mention countless other acts and norms in society at that time which were explicitly Christian) contravene s116 and should be banished from the social legal sphere – and that this is in line with the intention of the founding fathers when they penned s116 (!!).

Do you really think that they would have put the constitution together with such a glaring flaw?? If they had your perspective on s116, they wouldn’t have founded the entire document in such an explicitly Christian way in the opening para - they would have ommitted it.

S116 is explicitly referring to the separation of the institutional Church (of all denominations) and the state, NOT the separation of Christianity and the state. If you looked at the legal history of the section (which I have – and discussed it at length with a Constitutional lawyer who was assigned to the Consitutional Committee that was in charge of co-ordinating the Republic debate in the late 90s), you would see that the cases where s116 has been raised have always had to do with denominational issues and the church as an institution. It is not related to the legislation of Christian moral principles in our broader legal framework as you suppose. The founding fathers would have had to be incompetent idiots to make such an obvious and glaring mistake in the penning of the document, not to mention complete neglect and silence when it came to the subsequent legislation of Christian morality at large (e.g. the marriage act).

There is further evidence of the assumption of Christianity within the constitution as well. Section 61 firmly establishes the initial executive power of the nation in the office of the Queen (which has continually waned into non-existence throughout our history). The office of the Queen/King has explicitly been regonised as a Christian institution (certainly historically), vested by God, and responsible for implementing God’s laws as found in the Bible (have a look at the coronation oath sometime). This pattern was normative, and was assumed in the Australian legal framework in s61 - thus the proliferate historical legislation based on the Christian moral framework.

No wonder history has been banished from public schools, it doesn’t sit nicely with the agenda of the day. It’s staggering to see such historical ignorance at large (there’s a lot of brainwashed people out there with a similarly ill-informed opinion on s116). If you can’t admit the ridiculousness of your position, I’m not going to bother arguing further, as there’s no historical or legal case for your interpretation of s116. So called ‘secular government’ is based upon humanistic faith – and although it’s predominant today, it certainly wasn’t in 1901 in Australia. Christian faith was the framework from which our governmental system was born because Christian faith was overwhelmingly the framework from which our nation came from, and in which our population operated at that time.

True Believer says:

10:33am | 20/11/10

Apologist:

What an excellent, informative and well-balanced post. I think Steely Dan is lost for words and that must be an interesting new experience for him. Keep up the good work!! :0)

Steely Dan says:

09:06pm | 21/11/10

@ tb

“That an excellent, informative and well-balanced post.”
While I disagree with the apologist’s conclusions, I clearly acknowledge that he/she is not championing irrationality.  Given your explicit opposition to reason on the topic of religion, I find it odd that you thought that was a good post.

the apologist says:

08:50am | 22/11/10

@ True Believer:
Thanks for your encouragement

@Steely Dan:

Part 2.

Ok, apparently my post on my opinions on paedophilia and slavery was too unrelated to our discussion, as it got blocked. I’ll try again, but attempt to be a bit more explicit this time.

Why do I think slavery and paedophilia are wrong?

Slavery: I actually don’t think slavery is necessarily wrong – as long as it is a model of slavery consistent with the Biblical model (which is closer to modern day employment – providing protection, stability, food, money, etc for those who enter such a state – as well as the establishment of laws for the protection of the rights of slaves). Naturally, the slavery against which the likes of Wilberforce fought is abominable to me - mainly for the reason that humans have intrinsic value as being created in the image of God. To kidnap and force someone into labour is to disregard that value, to break God’s law on the matter (the punishments for engaging in slave trading are quite severe), and in fact to steal from God, as He alone has ownership rights of anyone and everyone (Psalm 24).

Paedophilia: God’s boundaries for the expression of sexuality are patently obvious – sexuality is to be exercised within the bounds of a marriage covenant and anything else is immoral. Paedophilia is sexual perversion, and also disregards the intrinsic value of human life that I have outlined already – not to mention that Jesus expressly pronounced that the punishment in line for anyone who violates the life of a child is particularly severe (Luke 17:2:” It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones”). From this point, it is clear that the pragmatic and immediately evidential observations of paedophilia support the Biblical position. I’d happily argue with anyone that sexuality outside of the Biblical model is basically destructive (again just more evidence that reality is consistent with a Biblical worldview) – this is certainly obvious in the case of paedophilia.

Steely Dan says:

10:35am | 22/11/10

@ the apologist

“I actually don’t think slavery is necessarily wrong – as long as it is a model of slavery consistent with the Biblical model (which is closer to modern day employment – providing protection, stability, food, money, etc for those who enter such a state – as well as the establishment of laws for the protection of the rights of slaves).”
So in Genesis 9:25, Noah curses Canaan with “The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers!” – can you really curse someone to voluntary employment?  In Genesis 43:18, did the men think that: “He wants to attack us and overpower us and seize us as employees and take our donkeys”?  In Exodus 1:11, is the “forced labour” being “oppressed” on the Israelites just overtime or working through a lunch break?  In Exodus 2:23, should it read that “The Israelites groaned in their employment and cried out, and their cry for help because of their employment went up to God”?  Is it okay to beat your employees, so long as they don’t die within “a day or two” (Exodus 21:20)?
It’s futile to try and spin this one.  Slavery looks pretty bad to me.

“To kidnap and force someone into labour is to disregard that value, to break God’s law on the matter (the punishments for engaging in slave trading are quite severe)”
Got a source for that one?  And Psalm 24 doesn’t come close to saying that a person may not possess another.  If 24:1-2 establishes god’s exclusive ownership of people, it would also establish his exclusive ownership of everything else – invalidating the notion of personal property.  ‘Thou shalt not steal’ would be as helpful an edict as ‘thou shalt not eat pixies’.

“God’s boundaries for the expression of sexuality are patently obvious – sexuality is to be exercised within the bounds of a marriage covenant and anything else is immoral.”
So where does God say you can’t marry children?  The Bible mentions you can rape so long as you marry the victim and pay off the father (clearly consent isn’t a big thing for God), but I don’t recall seeing anything relating to the ages of the couple.  And child brides were not uncommon in those days – wouldn’t a clarification (even if it just said ‘Thou shalt not sleep with children’ and left the age of informed consent up to the community) be a big help?

“…not to mention that Jesus expressly pronounced that the punishment in line for anyone who violates the life of a child is particularly severe”.
That’s murder.  We already know murder is bad unless ordered by God – so what about paedophilia?

I don’t think for a second you believe slavery or paedophilia to be good.  I think you’re trying to re-interpret the Bible to seek support for a position that you hold for non-religious reasons.

Steely Dan says:

03:26pm | 22/11/10

@ the apologist

Okay, looks like my first comment attempt to comment didn’t make it.  I’ll try to give a cut-down version.

“I do not think that ethical reality as we experience it is consistent with the theory that the universe is what atheists suppose, I think that ethical reality as we know it is consistent with the Biblical worldview.”
I know you reject evolution, but we did evolve to have consciences.  And showing that something is consistent with your worldview is insufficient to show that your worldview is correct.

“Thus talk of morals judgments (which you seem happy to make) is nonsense and in truth they are merely some chemical reaction that occurs in our brains.”
Just like the number four.  The quantity of four exists physically, but the number four is a concept.  Right and wrong are concepts, they are judgements of the utility of actions – real, physical actions that have real, physical consequences.

“From this perspective I can argue that any action I or anyone else undertakes is equally a-moral, and you’ve got no grounds to refute me on.”
Only if you say that only a god can be the judge of moral actions, not humans.  So all you have to do now is show that a God exists. 

“I made the comment that tyranny is bad based upon my ethical framework”
But you didn’t justify it.

“At best, it implies that it may be subjectively beneficial to agree to avoid hurting each other out of self-interest.”
That’s it!  You’ve got it!  See, until you show that there’s a god, this is what we have to go on! 

“Hurting others is still just as legitimate an action as submitting oneself to a social contract. The only question is who will win out.”
We people who don’t want to get hurt, hopefully.  And typically, we do win out, because societies with social structures and laws are predictably more productive than those without them.
“incidentally, how about necrophilia? you might find it difficult to argue that that one’s ‘wrong’”
It’s wrong not because the dead person is being violated (they’re dead, obviously), it’s wrong because of the grief it causes the family of the dead.  It’s very hard to separate the emotional attachment people have for the person and for their body, alive or dead.  And I also respect the rights of those who just don’t want it to happen to their body.

“Someone else’s opinion may be that it’s right. The reality is that both of you have simply come to that conclusion based upon some causative chemical process in each of your minds.”
So it comes down to the quality of the argument for or against action X.

“…and the position with the most adherents then wins by reason of force.”
And I don’t like that.  But it’s true, that’s what happens.

the apologist says:

09:03am | 24/11/10

@Steely Dan:
Part 1 re. slavery

Interesting interpretation of my comments!

In truth, I try to understand God’s word as best I can. I don’t pretend to have a perfect understanding of it, but I do have an apriori commitment to the moral standards revealed in it. If you don’t want to believe me and wish to keep your theory that I twist my beliefs into my own image, that’s fine - but I tell you now that I came to the position a long time ago that I submit my ideas to those of God. He is far wiser than I. If I have a particular position on a given issue, and realise that my opinion is at odds with His word (which has happened on numerous occasions), I change my opinion – not somehow seek to wrestle the word into my own framework as you suggest.

That said, you raise some issues in relation to what the Bible says, and I would be amiss not to address them. I’ll leave it to your judgment as to whether or not you find it a convincing interpretation or think I’m attempting to spin my way out of the apparent hard reality of what the Bible says.

You’ve made some very very obvious mistakes in your exegesis of the verses that you mention in relation to slavery. Exodus 1:11 and Exodus 2:23 are historical narrative in terms of genre, and document a distinctly unjust form of slavery. But just because the Bible records such events, does not mean that it approves of them. Quite the contrary. If I argued that it was morally right for Jesus to be crucified on the basis of the fact that the crucifixion is recorded, I would have made an identical mistake to yours. There is no doubt about the unjust nature of the slavery inflicted by the Egyptians in these verses in light of what is recorded of God’s direct word and command. Gen 9:25; Gen 43:18 are similar to the two above in that they are historical narrative, and do not necessarily imply that the conduct or words of those in the narrative are morally upright.

Just to get one thing straight – Ps 24 (and other Scriptures) recognise that all of creation belongs to God. You then argued that this makes a mockery of any concept of ownership on our part. Not so. The principle of delegated stewardship is a clear Biblical concept that recognises real responsibility on our part in relation to ownership (Gen 1 is the first place it appears where man is instructed to exercise dominion over the land, there are many many more parts of Scripture that make the principle clear). Thus, it is ok to ‘own’ a servant (as in Ex 21:20), provided that it is done so in recognition of God’s boundaries and ultimate ownership. Slavery exercised in violation of His boundaries is what is wrong (this kind of unjust slavery was exhibited by the Egyptians in the passages mentioned earlier).

Ex 21:20 however is not a historical narrative, it is very clearly part of God’s revealed and written law (a positive statement of righteousness on His part), and so the above arguments do not apply. I note firstly that the term ‘servant’ (not slave) is used; although ownership is implied to be sure. I note secondly that the law recognises the right of the servant’s owner to discipline a servant – which is fair enough if there is a just reason for it (as other passages make clear e.g Leviticus 19:20) - although kindness is also required from masters. Third, I note that the law recognises justice in the case of unjust punishment (e.g. if the punishment was too harsh, and the servant was killed either accidentally or deliberately, the owner is guilty); additionally, there was an established civil judicial system in which any injustice on the part of the owner could be tested as well. Fourth, the verse needs to be read in the context of the entire law given in the rest of the book, and the other books of the law of Moses – there are a number of laws relating to the protection of servants/slaves and the rights of the owners as well – together they form a framework for the whole issue. To take the verse alone is to have an incomplete understanding.

This framework for the legitimate exercise of slavery is the framework I referred to earlier (i.e. the legitimate Biblical framework for slavery on which I stated that I am not necessarily against the concept), and includes the penalties for unjust exploitation on the part of owners that you asked about. Briefly, the penalty laws for unjust slavery/kidnapping can be found in Ex 21:16; as I said, it is a heavy penalty, one of the sins that demands capital punishment. Actually, the first 11 verses of the same chapter are part of the ‘slavery framework’. Verse 5 is interesting, now why would a slave wish to stay under his master whom he loves if he was being oppressed in the way that your one-dimensional view of slavery suggests? Exodus 22:21 forbids tyranny (in light of what the Hebrews had suffered in Egypt).

Comment on Paedophilia to follow…

the apologist says:

09:23am | 24/11/10

@ Steely Dan:

Part 2 re. paedophilia

Your questions on the Biblical perspective on paedophilia raise some interesting issues, and I confess that I have not looked closely at them before. Your question about the forbidding of marrying children cuts to the point nicely I think. We can rule out paedophilia outside of marriage covenant (which I think you would concede, and which basically condemns the issue of predatorial paedophilia as it exists in modern society as immoral and perverted), but there remains the issue of ‘does God permit marriage of children?’, and then ‘is paedophilia possible within such an arrangement?’.

It’s true (to my knowledge) that God does not forbid the marriage of children anywhere in the Bible. From here, I would not necessarily argue that it is sinful or wrong for a child to marry. However, I would not necessarily argue that it’s right either, and certainly the normative patterns provided in the Bible suggest it to be very unwise and not the norm.

Although the possibility of paedophilia through child marriage is not explicitly addressed (which is the possibility that you’ve raised – it’s grasping at straws as it seems to be a particularly unusual perversion), the principles and pattern of approaching marriage provide the necessary protection and more or less nullify the possibility of a paedophile somehow exercising his/her perversion in that context. Rightly exercised they offer the moral protection necessary to keep a child from being exploited. So what are these principles?

Firstly, instruction and commandments abound for the individual pursuing marriage. Paedophilia aside, it is instructed that those approaching marriage, or considering entering marriage, are entering a life of commitment and service to one other person under God. If I am marrying out of purely ‘lustful’ (shall we say) heart motivation - which presumably someone would be if we are looking at whether or not it’s possible for paedophilia to occur in a marriage - i’m doing the wrong thing before God, as I have a perverted understanding of marriage. Such a state of heart suggests that there is a lot internally that needs to be set right and that pursuing paedophilia through marriage is sinful.

But secondly, the Biblical instruction on children is that they are under the care, responsibility and authority of their parents. This basically prevents paedophilia unless the parent breaks God’s commands in forcing or allowing their child to be subject to abuse through a marriage - presuming they were unwise enough to allow their child to marry before maturity. The Biblical model suggests that fathers are responsible for giving their daughters away in marriage (thus ‘who gives this woman away’ in a marriage ceremony), and it is easy to see that a good father would prevent the abuse of his daughter by allowing her to marry at such a young age. In addition, the Biblical model also suggests that there is to be agreement by the father and the daughter before a marriage occurs - thus the daughter should not necessarily be forced into a situation. Obviously paedophilia through marriage is not a legitimate avenue in the case of homosexual abuse, as homosexuality is explicitly forbidden.

In short, I don’t think the Biblical model for marriage allows for predatory paedophilia as we understand the issue - unless there is clearly wrong conduct on the part of the parents in particular. I don’t doubt that such conduct has occured in the past, but that certainly doesn’t change the fact that is morally wrong.

Sandy says:

10:36am | 24/11/10

All very interesting apologist and steely. But my point about religion is that irrespective of what scriptures say about marriage, most religions oppose homosexuality.

There’s our feelings of fear and the fact that we are encouraged to compete with each other for merit.  All that’s needed to open the flood gates of opposition is the green light from religions.

Condescension and the pushing of questionable or incorrect ‘principles’ by the G&L campaigners is just fuel for the fire because they just validate the fear. Using the left as a conduit to sell the gay marriage message is a truly terrible idea.  But it seems that some of the left leaning G&L just can’t help themselves and I’m sure many of the right leaning G&L are shaking their heads in frustration.

Steely Dan says:

11:54am | 24/11/10

@ the apologist

“Exodus 1:11 and Exodus 2:23 are historical narrative in terms of genre, and document a distinctly unjust form of slavery. But just because the Bible records such events, does not mean that it approves of them.”
Now that’s an interesting interpretation of my comments – I wasn’t arguing that the Bible said that slavery was a positive for all concerned!  I’m arguing the opposite!  The Bible clearly shows that slavery can be very bad for the poor slaves!

“The principle of delegated stewardship is a clear Biblical concept that recognises real responsibility on our part in relation to ownership”
That’s what I thought.  So according to the Bible people can own other people.  Correct?

“Slavery exercised in violation of His boundaries is what is wrong (this kind of unjust slavery was exhibited by the Egyptians in the passages mentioned earlier).”
Why do you say that the slavery exhibited by the Egyptians was unjust?  How do you know the Jews weren’t doing something that deserved a beating?  That would be oppressive, but still within ‘God’s boundaries’.

“Thus, it is ok to ‘own’ a servant (as in Ex 21:20), provided that it is done so in recognition of God’s boundaries and ultimate ownership…. Ex 21:20 however is not a historical narrative, it is very clearly part of God’s revealed and written law… I note firstly that the term ‘servant’ (not slave) is used”
If you’re using the KJV.  The same Hebrew word is used for both slave and servant, the KJV is one of only a few Bible variants that choose to translate it as ‘servant’.  So whether 21:20 is speaking of servants or slaves, the passage does say that beating a servant/slave provided that they don’t day in a day or two is within ‘God’s boundaries’.

“I note secondly that the law recognises the right of the servant’s owner to discipline a servant – which is fair enough if there is a just reason for it (as other passages make clear e.g Leviticus 19:20) - although kindness is also required from masters.”
If you heard that a friend was beating their maid, would you report it to the police?  Or would you hold off reporting the abuse if you were satisfied that the maid had committed a transgression that justified a beating? 

“Third, I note that the law recognises justice in the case of unjust punishment (e.g. if the punishment was too harsh, and the servant was killed either accidentally or deliberately, the owner is guilty)”
You do realise that this is completely out of step with modern legal standards, right?  If a person punches their maid they should be found guilty of physical abuse – except in cases of self-defence or in defence of others who are facing immediate danger at the hands of the person you physically attack.  In our society, beating your servant is wrong.  Not just wrong, illegal. 

“additionally, there was an established civil judicial system in which any injustice on the part of the owner could be tested as well.”
You’re relying on extra-Biblical civil judicial systems to keep the inerrant word of God in check?

“Briefly, the penalty laws for unjust slavery/kidnapping can be found in Ex 21:16”
Ex 21:16: “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.”  There’s nothing there prohibiting owning a slave.  That just says you can’t kidnap anybody, and that you’ll be punished whether you sell them or keep them.  It doesn’t even suggest that you can’t buy slaves – in fact, 21:7 says that you’re free to sell your own children into slavery! 
A few verses later (21:10), we see (yet again) that God is fine with polygamy – you must be livid that the Marriage Act in this allegedly Christian country excludes the possibility of plural marriage.  Not to mention that exercising Ex 21:17 would be considered murder.

“Verse 5 is interesting, now why would a slave wish to stay under his master whom he loves if he was being oppressed in the way that your one-dimensional view of slavery suggests?”
It may have been that some slaves were better off with their slave-owners – that would depend on the way they are treated, and their options for employment if they were freed.  But the possibility of benevolent slave-owners doesn’t excuse the existence of a law that justifies abusing slaves or holding anybody in forced servitude (21:5 clearly shows that forced servitude was okay).  And 21:5 also shows that if the slave changes their mind (eg. if they have an employment opportunity nearby), the slave owner can deny them their freedom still!

“ Exodus 22:21 forbids tyranny (in light of what the Hebrews had suffered in Egypt).”
Exodus 22:21: “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” So you can only keep fellow citizens as slaves?  Doesn’t this contradict Lev 25:44?

Steely Dan says:

01:13pm | 24/11/10

@ the apologist

“Your questions on the Biblical perspective on paedophilia raise some interesting issues, and I confess that I have not looked closely at them before.”
I think this supports my assessment that you use the Bible to justify your ‘gut’ feeling on an issue.  In the case of paedophilia, I’m obviously happy to see that your instinct is to oppose it.

“I would not necessarily argue that it’s right either, and certainly the normative patterns provided in the Bible suggest it to be very unwise and not the norm.”
Which ‘patterns’?  Again, I think you’re looking to the Bible for clear support of your position, and when you don’t see it you just assume that seeing Jesus must have been a nice guy, he would have opposed paedophilia.  You’re right in saying that the Bible does not appear to be pro-paedophilia – but at best it’s silent on the issue.
“Although the possibility of paedophilia through child marriage is not explicitly addressed (which is the possibility that you’ve raised – it’s grasping at straws as it seems to be a particularly unusual perversion)”
Why do you say it’s unusual?  Marriages to children in ancient societies weren’t uncommon.  And even if they were, the Bible does not prevent these marriages from happening.

“the principles and pattern of approaching marriage provide the necessary protection and more or less nullify the possibility of a paedophile somehow exercising his/her perversion in that context.”
Which passages provide this protection?  Are there any passages that even forbid rape of a spouse?  You say that marriage is “entering a life of commitment and service to one other person under God” but this provides no such protection.

“If I am marrying out of purely ‘lustful’ (shall we say) heart motivation - which presumably someone would be if we are looking at whether or not it’s possible for paedophilia to occur in a marriage”
But the Bible clearly states that marriages based on lust are possible, legal and as the result of some actions – mandated (Deut 22:28-9). 

“…the Biblical instruction on children is that they are under the care, responsibility and authority of their parents. This basically prevents paedophilia unless the parent breaks God’s commands in forcing or allowing their child to be subject to abuse through a marriage”
Or unless they were sold as slaves (Ex 21:7).  Or unless the child curses them, and the child is put to death (Ex 21:17).

“The Biblical model suggests that fathers are responsible for giving their daughters away in marriage… it is easy to see that a good father would prevent the abuse of his daughter by allowing her to marry at such a young age.”
It is easy to see.  But not because of anything the Bible says.

“the Biblical model also suggests that there is to be agreement by the father and the daughter before a marriage occurs - thus the daughter should not necessarily be forced into a situation.”
Again, Deut 22:28-9 shows that this is incorrect.

Steely Dan says:

01:21pm | 24/11/10

@ Sandy

“But my point about religion is that irrespective of what scriptures say about marriage, most religions oppose homosexuality.”
And churches would not be forced to perform or accept gay marriages - just like they can’t be forced to perform or accept mixed-race or inter-faith marriages.  So why bring them up?

“Using the left as a conduit to sell the gay marriage message is a truly terrible idea.”
So you’re against gay marriage and you don’t like the left.  Big surprise.  That hardly contributes to the debate.  And what’s this ‘fear’ that gay marriage is supposedly going to inflict upon us all?

Sandy says:

02:21pm | 24/11/10

@ Steely Dan
“hardly contributes to the debate” Oh yes it does.  The two subjects are unrelated.  Or by your logic all right wing gays are against gay marriage too. I know one who was a political leader.  He opposed the left more than I.

What part of “green light” don’t you understand?
“this ‘fear’ that gay marriage is supposedly going to inflict upon us all”  Let me try and crack that mind open a bit for you: poverty, unemployment, revenge,  denigration, loneliness, humiliation, loss of independence, depression, etc etc.  These fears are in all of us (G&Ls; are no different from others. Right?) and religion effectively gives the green light whereby many aim these fears at G&Ls;. And the intolerance spreads from there. Years ago I asked an African American what he thought other Americans feared.  He came back to me a few days later and said: they’re afraid we’ll do to them what they did to us.  I.e. fear of revenge.

Who are you trying to mislead that no G&Ls; are ever spiteful, elitist, selfish, greedy or vengeful? They’re just like straight people right? And plenty of heteros have plenty of these traits in them.

Hey.  I’m just calling it how I see it.  You’re the biassed one jumping to conclusions.

Steely Dan says:

02:54pm | 24/11/10

@ Sandy

“Oh yes it does.  The two subjects are unrelated.  Or by your logic all right wing gays are against gay marriage too.”
You stated that you oppose gay marriage, and that you don’t like the left.  Most people who oppose gay marriage are right-wing, so it’s not a surprise.  I made no statement suggesting that you have to be right-wing to oppose gay marriage or vice versa.  And again, your statement doesn’t contribute anything to the debate.

“What part of “green light” don’t you understand?”
I have no problem with the phrase ‘green light’. 
“These fears are in all of us (G&Ls; are no different from others. Right?) and religion effectively gives the green light whereby many aim these fears at G&Ls;”
What are you trying to say here?  That religion allows people to blame their fear on gays and lesbians?  It’s a terrible sentence.

“Who are you trying to mislead that no G&Ls; are ever spiteful, elitist, selfish, greedy or vengeful?”
When did I say or suggest this?

Sandy says:

05:04pm | 24/11/10

@ Steely Dan
Where have I said I oppose gay marriage? I support it and have already written my view to my MP in the hope that this is adopted.  Swiftly to avoid wasting Australian resources with the usual hooha about left v right. And my statement has everything to do with the debate. It shows that many of the current lines of argument being taken by proponents of gay marriage are flawed.  E.g. that the issue is at home on the left. Well, the people you are trying to convince that they’ve nothing to fear see (or at least - feel) the holes in the arguments. And that’s why you’re not getting what you want. Most people know when they’re being fed a line because ... well ... they’ve used the same line themselves.  And then they start looking for hidden agendas and stuff like that. Aligning with the left has stuffed it for you.  You have to find another way to get people to abandon life long held prejudices. Especially because the religions won’t remove their influence on that prejudice. So your fight is harder than for e.g. racial equality which the religions supported.

I don’t understand why you don’t take more of an approach that, G&L’s are no different from anybody.  E.g. we vote left and right.  Just about every G&L I know are more liberal than me.  Some are even more religious. You wouldn’t believe it the way the public debate is going.  You’d think they’re all God hating socialists. Or try pointing out that the family law will stampede just as indescriminatly and indignantly through the G&L community as it currently does through the straight community. That’ll delight some homophobes.

“That religion allows people to blame their fear on gays and lesbians?” Yup.  That’s what I’m saying. Supra nationally sanctioned discrimination.  But I never said that they blame homosexuals for the fear. The fear is always there in all of us.  But with a religious sanction people feel freer to act on the fear and aiming their feelings against G&Ls;. And that action is Supra nationally sanctioned. Why else do you think people are homophobic?  Just because they’re stupid? Because of the “vibe”?  I disagree.  People generally support anything that they believe will benefit them. And like minded G&Ls;, whose only difference is their choice of partner, will benefit them as employers, employees, friends, vendors, siblings, landlord, tenants, flat mates, tax payers etc etc etc.  So where does the phobia come from? The way I see it - it’s the combination of good old fashioned fear together with with hundreds of years of supra nationally sanctioned discrimination. It’s a tough cookie to crack.

“When did I say or suggest this?”  I said this to try to get my point across.  That taking the high moral ground won’t work. Sorry if I was too aggressive. Homophobes can clearly see that G&L’s can be just as mean and hard as they are. Or just as bitchy. That’s probably why you can’t sell the ‘fairness’ debate. Not an ideal example but just look at the classic gay or effeminate stereotype on TV - confident and bitchy.  Am I wrong? I mean heh, apparently we’ve had an openly gay and have an openly lesbian High Court judge. Does not compute. Doesn’t the High Court represent a protector of conservative dominance to many voters? 

That’s how I see it.

Steely Dan says:

11:07pm | 24/11/10

@ Sandy

“Where have I said I oppose gay marriage? I support it and have already written my view to my MP in the hope that this is adopted.”
Well, good.  But I hope the letter didn’t read like your last two comments.  Because I couldn’t work out what you were on about.  Sorry.

the apologist says:

03:18pm | 25/11/10

@Steely Dan

Re. ethical theory comments.

Well, I’ll say one thing, you seem to be a prolific poster! It is difficult to find time to keep up with the discussion, but I’ll post as able (I plan on commenting further on the slavery and paedophilia comments).

You said: “showing that something is consistent with your worldview is insufficient to show that your worldview is correct.” This cuts to the heart of one of the key aspects of our discussion I think. I don’t know if you are familiar with it, but the argument here is known as the ‘transcendental argument’. The basic line is that the atheistic/materialistic/naturalistic view of the universe cannot give a logical and reasonable defence of – not just ethics – but epistemology/logical process, order in creation/scientific process, and well, basically that it can’t give a reasonable and logical account of existence based upon the premise of what it supposes the universe to be. I still don’t think you’ve given anything like a reasonable account that validates ethics if the universe is what atheists suppose.

You said: “At best, it implies that it may be subjectively beneficial to agree to avoid hurting each other out of self-interest.”
That’s it!  You’ve got it!  See, until you show that there’s a god, this is what we have to go on!”
If that’s all we’ve got to go on, then it is a miserable and irrational ethical situation indeed. There’s nothing in this immediate observation that suggests that wrong or right is possible, and certainly nothing that suggests that there is an obligation (ethical or otherwise) to act in a certain - the only thing it suggests is that people don’t like to get hurt. Actions and decisions following on from this fact are not necessarily logically tied with the fact itself. Thus the enigma and problem of ethics remains in the atheistic universe.

In the interests of stimulating thought and perhaps attempting to make my case a little clearer, I might recommend something to your reading (you may find it interesting). I would point you in the direction of a debate between Dr Bahnsen and Dr Stein. Bahnsen is what I consider to be one of the greatest Christian apologists of recent decades, and to my mind gives a very competent defence of the Christian worldview, while highlighting the flaws inherent in an atheistic universe. Anyway, the text of the debate is available at: http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf

The MP3 can also be tracked down, but the only place I know of where it can be acquired is to purchase it from the website where they keep all of Bahnsen’s stuff (he died in 1995) – Covenant Media Foundation. Anyway, you may find the debate interesting/thought provoking – I understand that Stein was/is (?) a lauded atheist. Bahnsen was certainly more competent than I am at any rate.

You said: “The quantity of four exists physically, but the number four is a concept.  Right and wrong are concepts, they are judgements of the utility of actions – real, physical actions that have real, physical consequences.” Your comparison doesn’t work. As you say, 4 exists as a concept based in physical reality (e.g. you can actually have ‘4’ people). It doesn’t fly with actions, as you said earlier, physics don’t have an ethical perspective, but when it comes to actions, physics is all we have if the universe is the athiest universe.

You said: “So it comes down to the quality of the argument for or against action X.” But the quality or otherwise of the argument is not inherently obvious, it can only be subjectively determined. There is no meaningful standard by which the arguments can be measured.

the apologist says:

03:42pm | 25/11/10

@SD & Sandy.
Interesting discussion re. gay marriage. As someone who is definitively against homosexuality, I find that those of on opposite persuasion on the debate seem to be completely unable to grasp one of the key aspects of the position that people like me hold – that is, homophobia has nothing to do with it, it is a purely moral issue.
Fear is not even part of the equation as far as I’m concerned, nor is hatred. To the contrary, I can honestly say that I feel nothing but compassion for homosexuals, and wish only the best for them (as I do with everyone else). The issue is simply that I believe homosexuality to be ethically wrong, and I believe that it is important to stand up for what is ethically right – regardless of the issue.
Not to say that there isn’t homophobia and irrational hatred out there, but it’s got nothing to do with my opposition to homosexuality.

Steely Dan says:

10:35pm | 25/11/10

@ the apologist

“I don’t know if you are familiar with it, but the argument here is known as the ‘transcendental argument’.”
I do know TAG, and I’m not impressed by it.

“The basic line is that the atheistic/materialistic/naturalistic view of the universe cannot give a logical and reasonable defence of – not just ethics – but epistemology/logical process, order in creation/scientific process, and well, basically that it can’t give a reasonable and logical account of existence based upon the premise of what it supposes the universe to be.”
That doesn’t quite sound like TAG, but I’ll address it anyway.  Firstly, this does not address the issue that I raised (ie. showing that something is consistent with your worldview is insufficient to show that your worldview is correct).  Secondly, if it were true that a naturalistic view cannot give a logical defence ethics, epistemology etc, this would not validate Christianity’s views on the subjects.  To do this you’d have to show that naturalism and Christianity were the only two possible worldviews.  Thirdly, saying that naturalism has not explained all the mysteries of the universe does not invalidate the claim that the supernatural exists.

“If that’s all we’ve got to go on, then it is a miserable and irrational ethical situation indeed.”
The situation we’re in is the situation we’re in.  Until you can show that a god exists, this is where we are.  Objecting to the situation doesn’t change it.

“There’s nothing in this immediate observation that suggests that wrong or right is possible, and certainly nothing that suggests that there is an obligation (ethical or otherwise) to act in a certain - the only thing it suggests is that people don’t like to get hurt.”
There certainly are right and wrong ways to achieve a shared goal, though obviously it’s not always easy to tell which actions will achieve it.  And we do feel (sociopaths excepted) an obligation to help maintain societal standards.  If you want to say that’s because god wrote a moral code on our hearts, we’re back to asking for proof that a god exists.  And like Christianity, our society promotes punishment and rewards for actions – we just don’t say that the police are omniscient.

“I might recommend something to your reading (you may find it interesting).”
I haven’t heard of either Dr, but I’ll have a read and get back to you.

“As you say, 4 exists as a concept based in physical reality (e.g. you can actually have ‘4’ people). It doesn’t fly with actions, as you said earlier, physics don’t have an ethical perspective, but when it comes to actions, physics is all we have if the universe is the athiest universe.”
Again, you seem to be assuming that ethics must be intrinsic.  Imagine a situation where: 
a)  You could exert energy X to press button A for reward Y, but as a by-product you harm person Z; or
b)  You could exert energy X to press button B for reward Y, and as a by-product you help person Z.
X, Y and Z are all real, measurable entities.  The action of physically pressing one button or another is ethically neutral.  But the decision (this simple example assumes the actor knows the consequences of their actions, and there are only two actions) to press A is wrong, and the decision to press B is right.  The physical actions (just like holding a gun and pulling a trigger) are neither right nor wrong, but the decision (like knowing that pulling the trigger will kill someone) is either right or wrong.

“But the quality or otherwise of the argument is not inherently obvious, it can only be subjectively determined.”
That just sounds like you haven’t examined it hard enough.  But if you really can’t tell which action will best achieve the shared goal, then there’s no ethical dilemma.

the apologist says:

03:42pm | 26/11/10

@Steely Dan:

Re. slavery

Ah! I see. Well, if you’re holding the position that the Biblical position is anti-slavery, then I believe we agree to a degree.

As you said, the Bible clearly shows that slavery can be bad for the slaves, but it’s also clear that there are laws regulating slavery – as I think you also clearly see. There can be no doubt that this is the case because the same word for slave is used in the Hebrew in both in the places where slavery is regulated and in the places where slavery is condemned (as you pointed out).

To put it simply, I believe that this simply indicates that there is a right way of doing it and a wrong way of doing it. The way to draw the lines on either side is to do an exhaustive Biblical study of the topic and to side with the right way of doing it. That’s my approach, and somewhat expounds on what I meant when I both agreed with the concept earlier and then also disagreed with the concept.

You said: “Why do you say that the slavery exhibited by the Egyptians was unjust?  How do you know the Jews weren’t doing something that deserved a beating?”. The actions of God in redeeming His people from slavery are the most obvious thing that make it clear that the slavery inflicted by the Egyptians was unjust – as God is a God of justice and only does things that are consistent with justice.

You said: “If you heard that a friend was beating their maid, would you report it to the police?  Or would you hold off reporting the abuse if you were satisfied that the maid had committed a transgression that justified a beating?”. The scenario you’ve painted is not one that is comparable to the biblical law framework. To start with, there was a definitively legislated slave system mandated in the law which set the boundaries for what a just punishment was and what an unjust punishment was. If I lived in a society that conformed to the revealed system, and a master was justly punishing a slave in accordance with the law, I would not have an issue. If it was unjust, I would take action against it. As it stands, present day society doesn’t have a system in place that applies this system of law, so trying to apply it in our system will not work. If, however, I did see someone beating a housemaid, and I perceived that it was unjust (which the situation you’ve constructed seems to be), of course I would intervene (e.g. ring the cops or get involved directly). 

You said: “You do realise that this is completely out of step with modern legal standards, right?  If a person punches their maid they should be found guilty of physical abuse – except in cases of self-defence or in defence of others who are facing immediate danger at the hands of the person you physically attack.  In our society, beating your servant is wrong.  Not just wrong, illegal.” Yes, of course I realise it’s out of step with modern legal standards. Most of my views are – given that they are based upon the Biblical standard of righteousness (for e.g., I support capital punishment strongly). I would note that there is a difference between an unprovoked attack on one’s maid (which is what your comments seem to suggest) and the lawful exercise of just punishment. 

You said: “You’re relying on extra-Biblical civil judicial systems to keep the inerrant word of God in check?”. Under the Mosaic system, there was a recognised and established judicial system – one of the main chapters that looks at this is Exodus 18.

As it happens, no, I’m not livid about polygamy laws. True, it does not seem that God counts it as a sin, but He certainly never encourages it. Generally, it seems to be viewed negatively in His word, and is portrayed as being outside of the normal/ideal pattern. Ps. We’re not a Christian country anymore.

You said: “Exodus 22:21: “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” So you can only keep fellow citizens as slaves?  Doesn’t this contradict Lev 25:44?” You falsely equate oppression with slavery. Biblical law requires that there should be no unjust oppression in the exercise of slavery.

Steely Dan says:

09:24am | 29/11/10

@ the apologist

Sorry for the delay between replies, I’m frequently away from an internet connection over the weekends.

“Well, if you’re holding the position that the Biblical position is anti-slavery, then I believe we agree to a degree.”
The Bible is not anti-slavery.  It just says that it’s not good to be a slave.

“but it’s also clear that there are laws regulating slavery – as I think you also clearly see.”
Regulation isn’t enough.  ‘You can beat them but you can’t kill them unless they die more than a day or two after their beating’ isn’t good enough.  Just being forced to work for someone (regardless of the pay) should be illegal.

“To put it simply, I believe that this simply indicates that there is a right way of doing it and a wrong way of doing it.”
Is there a right way and a wrong way to murder people?  Instant, painless death is obviously better than being tortured to death.  Yet the Bible says don’t murder (unless instructed by God), and doesn’t come down the same way on slavery.  The Bible supports slavery. 

“The actions of God in redeeming His people from slavery are the most obvious thing that make it clear that the slavery inflicted by the Egyptians was unjust – as God is a God of justice and only does things that are consistent with justice.”
I think you just hit the nail on the head there.  “His people”.  God is not a God of justice, God is a God of favouritism. 
“…there was a definitively legislated slave system mandated in the law which set the boundaries for what a just punishment was and what an unjust punishment was.”
Where?  You need to show a Biblical reference.  God wasn’t writing an amendment to local legislation, was He?

“If I lived in a society that conformed to the revealed system, and a master was justly punishing a slave in accordance with the law, I would not have an issue.”
So you’re pro-slavery.  You believe that forcing people to work for you is just.

“If, however, I did see someone beating a housemaid, and I perceived that it was unjust (which the situation you’ve constructed seems to be), of course I would intervene (e.g. ring the cops or get involved directly).”
And if I saw someone beating their housemaid for anything but self-defence, I’d report it instantly, and I’d tell the police that you stood by to deliberate on whether you thought the physical assault was warranted or not.  And you’d be charged with failure to report a crime.  You’d be an accessory.  Your position isn’t just immoral, it’s actually illegal.

“Ps. We’re not a Christian country anymore.”
Then your opposition to gay marriage is null and void.  Nobody’s forcing you to attend, officiate or engage in a gay marriage. 

“You falsely equate oppression with slavery. Biblical law requires that there should be no unjust oppression in the exercise of slavery.”
No, I correctly note that slavery is by its very nature oppression – whether you deem the slavery ‘just’ or ‘unjust’.

Sandy says:

10:58am | 29/11/10

@ the apologist
“I believe homosexuality to be ethically wrong” You’re saying you’ve introduced me to a new line of argument.  But haven’t explained to me what that is. Ethics is a big area.  It’s like saying: I’m against it becasue of religion.  Or: I’m against it because of science? Why do you hold that it is ethically (or morally) wrong?

Because of scripture? Because of biology?  The outcome of balancing the benefits to all parties and the society involved?

You need to be able to answer this question because it’s a democratic decision in the end. So you need to win votes.  And even with my severely limited knowledge I’ve found holes in all the arguments based on the data presented to me.

I don’t see why you’re fighting homosexuality through our legislation when so many of the far more elevated moral rules are being so flagrantly mocked.  Take Greed and Covetousness for a start. Ie. we’ve let adherance to a huge percentage of the ten commandments slide. There’s something else in this issue that stirs such opposition.

I’m leaning towards it being supra national sanctioning of primal survival of the fittest instincts against a easily identifyable group.

Sandy says:

11:23am | 29/11/10

@ the apologist.

Anyway, if you’re opposed to homosexuality then wouldn’t you want our secular family law to tear up their society as well? Our marriage law has already been stripped of your values. It’s lost to you. It merely extends to commercial and co-parenting matters and has introduced incentives for self destruction. Give them some more length of that rope that they so desire. Why are you trying to protect them from themselves?

the apologist says:

03:22pm | 02/12/10

@Steely:
Thanks.
I haven’t ignored your comments, i’ve got some of my replies cooking up, so i’ll post again in the next few days - just so you don’t think i’m ignoring your posts!
Cheers

the apologist says:

09:11am | 03/12/10

@Steely Dan

re. ethics

Ok, been a week or so since I’ve been looking at the conversation, but a few comments to add.

You said: “if it were true that a naturalistic view cannot give a logical defence ethics, epistemology etc, this would not validate Christianity’s views on the subjects.”
But it would rule out the option of a naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic view of the universe – the impossibility of the contrary. That leaves you with a problem.

You said:
“Again, you seem to be assuming that ethics must be intrinsic.  Imagine a situation where: 
a)  You could exert energy X to press button A for reward Y, but as a by-product you harm person Z; or
b)  You could exert energy X to press button B for reward Y, and as a by-product you help person Z. X, Y and Z are all real, measurable entities.  The action of physically pressing one button or another is ethically neutral.  But the decision (this simple example assumes the actor knows the consequences of their actions, and there are only two actions) to press A is wrong, and the decision to press B is right.  The physical actions (just like holding a gun and pulling a trigger) are neither right nor wrong, but the decision (like knowing that pulling the trigger will kill someone) is either right or wrong.”

You’ve presumed too much based upon your presupposition of a naturalistic universe here. You’ve already passed an ethical judgment in using the term ‘help’. What are you basing that judgment on? How do you measurably justify an ethical concept like help?

In your previous comments, you highlighted that my arguments still leave me with the problem of ‘proving’ God, even if it was possible that they were an accurate critique that posed problems for an atheist worldview. What I think you’ve failed to realise (in previous discussions as well) is that everyone inherently presumes untestable, or ‘faith-based’ presuppositions in the way that they establish knowledge – I believe you’ve failed to recognise the nature of knowledge itself.

You (and most atheists) would say that every claim needs to be tested evidentially and by logical process before it is accepted as legitimate (thus your demand for ‘proof’ of God). But you fail to realise that you’ve presumed too much. You’ve put yourself in a position of ‘pretended neutrality’ as Bahnsen put it. Just as I presume the reality of God in my thinking as the foundation of knowledge, and the necessary presupposition for its legitimacy, so you presume the empirical process to be the only legitimate presupposition for establishing knowledge. But tell me, if empirical process is the only way by which knowledge can be convincingly established, how do you justify or prove the validity of the process itself? The moment you attempt to do so, you are engaging in circular reasoning, as you are using the empirical/rationalistic process to validate itself. But further, if you use some other method to prove the premise, then you’ve invalidated the premise itself as the sole method for establishing knowledge. You loose both ways.

Everyone engages in circular reasoning – yourself included – and it leaves the atheistic worldview with a foundationally unresolvable epistemological dilemma. By rights, unless the dilemma can be resolved, the worldview should not be reasonably accepted as legitimate. If you’ve looked at the history of philosophy, you’ll see that it traces the history of this question – and there has not been an answer found to it.

If you can’t justify your view on epistemology, you can hardly even claim to legitimately engage with the topic of ethics – which faces similar issues.

the apologist says:

10:00am | 03/12/10

@Sandy:

You’ve raised some important points.

First, I agree with you on the widespread deviation in terms of moral or immoral legislation. Homosexuality is just one area, there are many more as you say. From that perspective, homosexuality is not my hobby horse, as far as I’m concerned, I would like to see all laws upholding ethically righteous standards.

You asked why I believe it’s ethically wrong? The question is why is anything ethically wrong. The way I go about discerning whether anything is ethically wrong is by looking firstly at the character of God, and then looking at the laws which He has spoken outlining what is and is not ethically wrong (laws which are merely reflective of the righteous character of God). My argument naturally presupposes that the Scriptures are the revelation of God (by which I look at His character, and read His laws). That is how I determine what is ethically right and wrong. Incidentally, I believe that the biological arguments etc. also demonstrate the consistency of the Biblical position, although they are not what it is based upon.

How about you? How do you determine what is right or wrong?

You said: “You need to be able to answer this question because it’s a democratic decision…” Why is it a democratic question?

Steely Dan says:

03:13pm | 03/12/10

@ the apologist

“But it would rule out the option of a naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic view of the universe – the impossibility of the contrary. That leaves you with a problem.”
That would leave me with a problem.  But that would not make Christianity’s views on the subjects valid either.  Makeitupasyougoism would be just as valid as Christianity.

“You’ve already passed an ethical judgment in using the term ‘help’. What are you basing that judgment on?”
In the example the person has a goal they’d like to achieve.  Why would a rational person want to assist that person to achieve that goal (assuming their goal isn’t something like trying to kill somebody)?  Because a) we lose nothing by doing it, b) we usually get a good feeling from it, and c) we promote the social norm that helping others is a good thing, increasing the likelihood of that person (or another member of our society) helping us achieve our goal/s.

“But you fail to realise that you’ve presumed too much. You’ve put yourself in a position of ‘pretended neutrality’ as Bahnsen put it.”
Bahnsen is trying to claim that logic is biased against supernaturalism.  Logic must use methodological naturalism for testing claims. That is different to excluding the possibility of supernatural causes, which is philosophical naturalism. 
The ‘you can’t prove logic is logical’ stuff is dealt with in the first lecture of Intro to Philosophy.  We assume the supremacy of logic because we observe that it works.  It has such a good track record that no sane person is willing to adopt an alternative when it comes to the crunch.  Want to use faith to jump off a building and fly to Saturn?  Of course not.  You presuppose the laws of logic are valid like the rest of us.  So we both assume that logic is logical, even if logic alone cannot prove (or disprove) the statement.  So to get out of this conundrum you make another presupposition about a being whose existence would validate the ‘logic is logical’ tautology.  The problem is you have to actively discard logic and adopt faith to attempt to validate the logic tautology.  You haven’t solved the problem at all.  You’ve just inserted another unprovable presupposition – and it conflicts with the first one. 
Bahnsen also presented a straw man of Stein’s views in the debate by suggesting that Stein thought the process of looking for crackers (opening the pantry door) was identical to the process of determining barometric pressure, quasars etc.  The problem is that although the processes are obviously different, none of the processes used to determine the existence of the items on his list (from crackers to quasars) are illogical.  If Bahnsen wanted to make his point better, he should have inserted items we know exist for illogical reasons – that would be an entertaining list.

the apologist says:

03:42pm | 06/12/10

@Steely Dan:

Re. slavery

You said: “Just being forced to work for someone (regardless of the pay) should be illegal.” Everyone is forced to work. If I don’t work, I don’t eat, I can’t pay my bills, etc. How unfair! I should have the option of not working if I want it! (que sarcasm). The fact is we have to work (generally speaking) – being forced to work is basically necessary, and from that perspective we’re all slaves (maybe it’s not that different from employment…).

You said: “The Bible supports slavery.” Yes, but you don’t seem to be getting the main point that there is a right way and a wrong way of doing it from the Biblical perspective, and unjust oppression falls into the wrong category. 

You said: “I think you just hit the nail on the head there.  “His people”.  God is not a God of justice, God is a God of favouritism.” You’ve opened up a separate issue here. First, Exodus 3:7-9 outlines that God Himself judged the slavery as unjust. But the issue of favouritism is a separate one – which is touched upon at the end of Exodus 2 (i.e. He remembered His covenant with the people of Israel).  Now the first three chapters of the book pretty clearly portray the conduct of the Egyptians as unjust, but you’re also right in the way that God favoured the people of Israel – there’s no denying that. But this does not preclude His justice – it merely illustrates His mercy. The Bible makes it clear that if God was solely a God of justice, we’d all be guilty and need to be judged. What you’ve touched upon in your favouritism comment is that God is willing also to show mercy to people who don’t deserve it. And he’s got every right to show it to whoever He will because He owes it to no one (Romans 9 discusses these issues). So yep, He’s still a God of justice.
 
You said: ““…there was a definitively legislated slave system mandated in the law which set the boundaries for what a just punishment was and what an unjust punishment was.”
Where?  You need to show a Biblical reference.”  Well, you simply systematically gather up all references to slavery in the law (Exodus 21 is one clear example that we’ve been discussing), and once you’ve grasped each one you’ve got the definitively legislated slave system. I don’t think here is the time or place to produce a systematic theology or doctrine of slavery however, so perhaps you can do the research yourself if it interests you.

You said: “So you’re pro-slavery.  You believe that forcing people to work for you is just.” Well, I did say that I’m not against slavery right from the start. Incidentally, I’m not necessarily against being a slave either – but it’s really a non-issue given the national context that we live in. I believe that people have a responsibility to work full stop (and are ‘forced’ to in the sense that you’re talking about) who they work for is secondary really.

You said: ““If, however, I did see someone beating a housemaid, and I perceived that it was unjust (which the situation you’ve constructed seems to be), of course I would intervene (e.g. ring the cops or get involved directly).”
And if I saw someone beating their housemaid for anything but self-defence, I’d report it instantly…..Your position isn’t just immoral, it’s actually illegal.”
You failed to read what I said. First – in our context slavery is a non-issue, so the whole ‘standing by’ thing is not applicable - a maid is not a slave – so it’s a different situation. Second, I actually said that I would intervene on the basis of the scenario you’ve constructed so please don’t try and tell me what my actions would be, and then that my actions would be immoral and illegal – especially since what I said my actions would be is the opposite of what you said that they would be.

You said: “Then your opposition to gay marriage is null and void.  Nobody’s forcing you to attend, officiate or engage in a gay marriage.” Not so much null and void as impotent. Naturally I recognise that I have no influence on the legislation and no prerogative to change other people’s behaviour. What I do have is the responsibility to speak the truth as best I can, and I will continue to do so. 

You said: “No, I correctly note that slavery is by its very nature oppression”. I’d be surprised if you could convincingly argue that slavery equates to oppression. Please try if you feel like it, but all you’ve given me at the moment is an unqualified statement of your belief on the issue. I think slavery and oppression are distinctly separate, although I can understand why most (yourself included) would equate the two given the close relationship that they have had throughout history.

Steely Dan says:

11:43am | 08/12/10

@ apologist

“Everyone is forced to work. If I don’t work, I don’t eat, I can’t pay my bills, etc. How unfair!”
I didn’t say it was unfair that we have to work. I think it would be unfair if we were forced to work for one employer only, who can change our working conditions, change our pay (if applicable), determine our living conditions and beat us – and we weren’t allowed to find a better employer!  If you disagree, come work for me.  You can live under my house.  I’m not going to pay you.  And you can’t leave.  Something tells me (I must be psychic) that you won’t take me up on this offer.  Why don’t we see ads like this in the careers section I wonder?
“Yes, but you don’t seem to be getting the main point that there is a right way and a wrong way of doing it from the Biblical perspective”
Just as there’s a right and wrong way to rape in the Bible (if you pay off the woman’s father and marry her its all good, apparently).  I think neither are right. 

“First, Exodus 3:7-9 outlines that God Himself judged the slavery as unjust.”
It doesn’t say the slavery was unjust.  God objects to it because it was happening to His people.  Why does He have this tribalist position?  Does it sound consistent with a group of people inventing a law to suit their own interests?

“Now the first three chapters of the book pretty clearly portray the conduct of the Egyptians as unjust”
Give examples.

“But this does not preclude His justice – it merely illustrates His mercy.”
Mercy is the suspension of justice.

“God is willing also to show mercy to people who don’t deserve it. And he’s got every right to show it to whoever He will because He owes it to no one (Romans 9 discusses these issues). So yep, He’s still a God of justice.”
So because he determines what justice is, justice doesn’t have to be consistent, so God can do anything and still be just.  If God orders people to rape and kill you, you shouldn’t object. 

 
“Well, you simply systematically gather up all references to slavery in the law… and once you’ve grasped each one you’ve got the definitively legislated slave system.”
So what you’re saying is there isn’t a definitively legislated slave system.

“Incidentally, I’m not necessarily against being a slave either – but it’s really a non-issue given the national context that we live in.”
No, it’s not.  You can volunteer yourself to be a slave to someone.  Why don’t you?

“You failed to read what I said. First – in our context slavery is a non-issue, so the whole ‘standing by’ thing is not applicable - a maid is not a slave”
So if a slave-owner started giving money to their slave – only then does beating them become immoral? 

“Second, I actually said that I would intervene on the basis of the scenario you’ve constructed so please don’t try and tell me what my actions would be”
I don’t have to tell you, you’ve already told the internet.  You’ve already stated that you would report abuse if you thought the beating was ‘unjust’, and admitted that you “realise it’s out of step with modern legal standards”.

“Not so much null and void as impotent.”
So you oppose it to be annoying?  To let people know what your views are? 

“I’d be surprised if you could convincingly argue that slavery equates to oppression. Please try if you feel like it”
Removing the right to free employment is oppression.  There you go.

the apologist says:

12:52pm | 08/12/10

@Steely Dan:

You said: “The ‘you can’t prove logic is logical’ stuff is dealt with in the first lecture of Intro to Philosophy.” Doesn’t sound like it’s dealt with to me – by the standards of logical process it’s not dealt with. It’s a philosophical cop-out. The basic argument of ‘it’s obvious’ is pretty ridiculous – and it’s not a sufficient account of the existence of the laws of logic, nor a validation of why they should be used – especially given that you then use your unprovable and rationally unaccounted for presupposition (i.e. the laws of logic) as the ultimate standard of validation. That it works is obvious, but making that observation is quite separate from giving a logical account of why it works, which generally speaking is the standard by which a given hypothesis is validated – why should logical process itself be excluded from such a test? It is perhaps the most important single hypothesis that needs to pass the test! (certainly from an atheistic viewpoint). Atheism is incapable of giving a reasonable explanation of the existence of logic, and thereby has no meaningful defence for the god-like status that atheists give it. Your only option is to engage in circular reasoning and defeat yourself by attempting to account for it, or to admit that logical process is not the sole means whereby knowledge may be attained.

As you say, I presuppose the laws of logic to be valid, but they are not my fundamental presupposition as they are yours. You said: “You haven’t solved the problem at all.  You’ve just inserted another unprovable presupposition” – that’s the point – knowledge undeniably requires unprovable presuppositions (unprovable if logic/reason is the sole means of gaining knowledge), which is something that atheists don’t seem to recognise. We all have faith, it’s just a question of what our God/god is.

You said: “The problem is you have to actively discard logic and adopt faith to attempt to validate the logic tautology.” I may have discarded logic as my ultimate court of appeal, but that does not deny its validity, it merely recognises its limits. Faith is a necessary component of functional logic – not something that is contradictory to it. They are separate (rather than conflicting) realities. You have faith in logic but you’re unable to prove its validity. I have faith in God, and His existence as creator of the entire universe not only provides an underlying explanation of why logic can exist (i.e. if something is created, it has an inherent logic and order – we clearly see this in the way that our own creations are ordered, as opposed to blind force, which orders nothing), but adequately explains the nature of ordered existence – which atheism does not. You ask for the evidence of God? Take a look at the universe. It is ludicrous to be able see the ridiculousness of saying a car formed by chance (which I’m sure you can), but then argue for dear life that the very brains that created the cars are a chance occurrence – which ultimately means that you’re arguing everything (cars included) is a chance occurence. If the universe is purely the movement of atoms, then the very logic we use and the order inherent in all of creation should not exist at all.

You said: “That would leave me with a problem.  But that would not make Christianity’s views on the subjects valid either.  Makeitupasyougoism would be just as valid as Christianity.” Makeitupasyougoism is a straw man on par with the spaghetti monster. The Christian system of thought is a comprehensive and clearly defined worldview – not just a meaningless word/sentence that replaces the word ignorance. When you said “Want to use faith to jump off a building and fly to Saturn?” you further demonstrated your straw man – Christianity has a defined use of the term ‘faith’, and sentences like this completely disregard that by using ‘faith’ simplistically (i.e. faith =belief in something that you have no logical reason for believing in). Interestingly Jesus was faced with a similarly ridiculous proposition in Luke 4:9-11.

What if we replaced a) with: we gain something by frustrating their goals b) with: a rational person gains pleasure from thwarting the help of the other (and there is probably more evidence in terms of the corporate history of humanity to suggest that this is the case in opposition to your proposition that we feel good by helping others) and c) with: we can get away with thwarting because social norms and conventions would not detect our action. Why would that be a less valid judgment on which to base one’s actions?

Steely Dan says:

05:04pm | 08/12/10

@ the apologist

“Doesn’t sound like it’s dealt with to me – by the standards of logical process it’s not dealt with. It’s a philosophical cop-out.”
It certainly is dealt with.  Epistemology is virtually devoted to it.  We can construct logical laws from observations of reality (eg. A is A; B is never not B; etc).  The presupposition that is needed for accepting these logical absolutes is that what we observe and comprehend is actually real.  It is true that we can’t be certain that we are not (eg) brains in jars – but if that’s the case and we don’t know it to be true, and we would be foolish to live our lives like we are brains in jars.  Though not the primary point of the phrase, Descartes’ ‘cogito ergo sum’ deals with this nicely.  What could you do in this perception of reality to start experiencing life as it really is?  We can never claim absolute certainty of anything, but the assumption that what we experience is real is a practical necessity. 

“That it works is obvious, but making that observation is quite separate from giving a logical account of why it works, which generally speaking is the standard by which a given hypothesis is validated”
It is.  But the laws of logic are laws, not a hypothesis or a theory.  We don’t need to establish why the laws are how they are to note that they exist. 

“Atheism is incapable of giving a reasonable explanation of the existence of logic”
I’ll explain this for the last time.  Atheism is incapable of explaining anything because it’s not a theory or a philosophy.  It’s the lack of a belief in an existence of god and nothing else. 

“Your only option is to engage in circular reasoning and defeat yourself by attempting to account for it”
Circular reasoning is a fallacious argument, but that doesn’t mean logic cannot be logical.  It just means that the circular reasoning argument is invalid.

“…or to admit that logical process is not the sole means whereby knowledge may be attained.”
We know that there are other ways of acquiring knowledge.  Chance is one of them.  But is chance a reliable way of acquiring knowledge?  No, it’s not.  Tossing a coin when you have a true/false answer option can give you the correct answer – but on average it is as accurate as it is inaccurate.

“As you say, I presuppose the laws of logic to be valid, but they are not my fundamental presupposition as they are yours.”
Are you saying that your belief in God lead you to accept logic (except in the case of God)? 

“We all have faith, it’s just a question of what our God/god is.”
I don’t believe in a god of any kind.  And I don’t have faith in logic.  It just happens to be the only reliable way to determine truth claims.  When logic stops being reliable, I’ll dump it. 

“I may have discarded logic as my ultimate court of appeal, but that does not deny its validity, it merely recognises its limits.”
That’s not ‘recognising limits’, that’s just discarding it. 

“It is ludicrous to be able see the ridiculousness of saying a car formed by chance”
Cars don’t form by chance.  We know how cars are made.

“but then argue for dear life that the very brains that created the cars are a chance occurrence”
Brains are not chance occurrences.  We have well-understood biological systems that produce brains.  And yes, evolution does happen.  Sorry if that bothers you.

“If the universe is purely the movement of atoms, then the very logic we use and the order inherent in all of creation should not exist at all.”
Why do you say that?  Does the existence of atoms exclude the possibility of logic being valid?

“Makeitupasyougoism is a straw man on par with the spaghetti monster.”
The Spaghetti Monster isn’t a straw man, and neither is Makeitupasyougoism.  They are not presented as things people believe in.  They are unpopular alternatives to current belief systems/philosophies.

“The Christian system of thought is a comprehensive and clearly defined worldview”
Except when it comes to explaining how or why God does anything.

“Christianity has a defined use of the term ‘faith’, and sentences like this completely disregard that by using ‘faith’ simplistically”
And what is your definition of faith?

“Interestingly Jesus was faced with a similarly ridiculous proposition in Luke 4:9-11.”
It wasn’t a ridiculous proposition!  The Devil said ‘prove it’ and Jesus said ‘no’. 
“Why would that be a less valid judgment on which to base one’s actions?”
I’m not completely sure what you’re trying to ask.  Are you asking why we shouldn’t do action c?  What’s the potential gain to myself, and the potential loss to the other person?  Are you saying that the loss to the other person is in itself the gain?

the apologist says:

11:08am | 13/12/10

@Steely Dan.
Re. paedophilia

You said: “I think this supports my assessment that you use the Bible to justify your ‘gut’ feeling on an issue.” Is it so hard for you to believe that I’m actually fully convinced that Bible is the revelation of God to mankind? I’m not pretending to be a Christian for kicks.

I’m almost tempted not to respond to your paedophilia comments, as it doesn’t appear that you’ve either carefully read or responded to my previous comments. To start with, you’re completely confusing the distinction that I made between children marrying and paedophilia.

I’m going to briefly re-state part of my case again (i don’t think I need a comprehensive exposition of Biblical marraige to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the line of thought that you are pursuing).

First, let’s get it clear – what exactly is paedophilia? The dictionary I looked at says something along the lines of ‘being sexually attracted to children’.

Biblically speaking, anything but sex inside of marriage is morally wrong. I trust that I don’t need to argue this. Thus, the only way in which paedophilia could conceivably occur is within the context of a marriage (which is what I meant when I said ‘it’s unusual’ i.e. it would be unusual for a paedophile to bother with the loop holes of marriage – if sexual abuse was the only motivation, then marriage seems to be basically unrelated and pointless which I think is supported by the fact that paedophilia is almost solely associated with purely sexual abuse, rather than the more healthy patterns of personal relationship that normally accompany a sexual relationship).

As we’ve mentioned, the Bible neither explicitly addresses paedophilia or child marriage – nonetheless the Biblical doctrine of marriage still establishes the illegitimacy of paedophilia. A couple of points re-iterated that show why.

1. Marriage itself is a protection when it is operating in a godly way. Biblical marriage is supposed to be an ‘other-focused’ relationship (a powerful example is Ephesians 5:25). If I was in a cultural situation where I somehow married a child, in the interests of my wife, I would wait until she was a young woman before sexual consummation of marriage – for her benefit. Paedophilia on the other hand, is all about self-gratification by using a child. Marrying purely for selfish sexual gratification is not Biblically ethical.

You said: “Which passages provide this protection?  Are there any passages that even forbid rape of a spouse?  You say that marriage is “entering a life of commitment and service to one other person under God” but this provides no such protection.” There are numerous passages outlining the Biblical pattern for marriage, suffice to say, if you’re loving your wife as Christ loved the Church (as the earlier reference stated), you will hardly rape her – and you will certainly not be loving her and thus acting unethically. Sho

2. Children don’t stay children forever. EVEN IF someone did marry a child for the purposes of self-gratification of their paedophile tendencies (thereby disobeying God), under the Biblical moral framework, they are still responsible to love their spouse, and remain faithful to them until death do them part. Kind of leaves paedophiles with a problem if they are trying to remain Biblically ethical.

There are plenty of other arguments that I could use, but I think the case is strong enough to show that paedophilia (as I defined it) is not a Biblically ethical option.

the apologist says:

02:55pm | 13/12/10

@Steely Dan:

Re. slavery

Sigh, you seem to be so closed minded to what I’m trying to say that you can’t even see what I’m trying to say and frequently misinterpret it.

You said: “If you disagree, come work for me.  You can live under my house.  I’m not going to pay you.  And you can’t leave.  Something tells me (I must be psychic) that you won’t take me up on this offer.”
What you’ve described is unconditional servitude, which the Biblical framework is not. There are responsibilities on the part of master or slave. But the main reason I won’t come and work for you is because I don’t need to. Entering into slavery was something that was undertaken in times of economical desperation – and taking a slave on could well be an act of mercy. I don’t need to, and I’m instructed to avoid it if I can (1 Corinthians 7: 21-23).

You said: “It doesn’t say the slavery was unjust.  God objects to it because it was happening to His people.” And the rest of the Bible makes it amply clear that He is a God of justice so we can trust His judgment.

You said: “Now the first three chapters of the book pretty clearly portray the conduct of the Egyptians as unjust” Give examples.” If you can’t read the first few chapters and clearly tell that the Jews were being oppressed, then you need to take a long hard look at yourself.

You said: “But this does not preclude His justice – it merely illustrates His mercy.” Mercy is the suspension of justice.” You’re absolutely wrong on this one – certainly from a Biblical perspective. That’s the whole point of the gospel which is at the very centre of Christianity – God is a God of justice, and so it is inconsistent with His very being for Him to suspend justice and show mercy. Thus He sent His Son to die on behalf of the guilty, to uphold justice (Christ bears the punishment of all who put their faith in Him) and show mercy to those who don’t deserve it.

You said: “So because he determines what justice is, justice doesn’t have to be consistent, so God can do anything and still be just.  If God orders people to rape and kill you, you shouldn’t object.” No. God is intrinsically just, so he doesn’t order people to do unjust things (which is what you’re suggesting He could do). Justice could easily be defined as the restoration of balance. i.e. – there is a standard of what is right, every time that standard is broken, there needs to be an equal action to restore what is right (eye for an eye…). Since God is altogether morally righteous, anything he commands is consistent with that righteousness, and so it is not possible that God should command something that contravenes His very being by ordering that which is unjust. 

You said: “So what you’re saying is there isn’t a definitively legislated slave system.” *smacks hand on face*

You said: “Incidentally, I’m not necessarily against being a slave either – but it’s really a non-issue given the national context that we live in.” No, it’s not.  You can volunteer yourself to be a slave to someone.  Why don’t you?” As above. And yes, it is inconsistent with our national context as it is entirely illegal. I didn’t think I’d need to try and convince you of that.

You said: “Second, I actually said that I would intervene on the basis of the scenario you’ve constructed so please don’t try and tell me what my actions would be” I don’t have to tell you, you’ve already told the internet…” *smacks hand on face again*. I told you something, but you clearly read what you wanted to see…

You said: “So you oppose it (homosexuality) to be annoying?  To let people know what your views are?”. No, I oppose it because it is morally wrong. When wrong happens, we have a responsibility to stand up and say what’s right. You would have stood up and said the holocaust was wrong would you not? (not comparing homosexuality and the holocaust, just the principle). 

“Removing the right to free employment is oppression.  There you go.” I thought I asked you to avoid simplistic belief statements? Proof please.

Steely Dan says:

04:37pm | 13/12/10

@ apologist

“Is it so hard for you to believe that I’m actually fully convinced that Bible is the revelation of God to mankind? I’m not pretending to be a Christian for kicks.”
I don’t think you’re pretending at all.  I just think you’re seeing what you want to see in the Bible, apologist.
 
“To start with, you’re completely confusing the distinction that I made between children marrying and paedophilia.”
Well, let’s pretend that if we saw a 55 year old man trying to marry a six year old girl that we wouldn’t suspect he was a paedophile.  It’s still wrong.  Are children able to consent to something as serious as marriage?  Can a six year old decide who they want to be with for the rest of their lives?

“Thus, the only way in which paedophilia could conceivably occur is within the context of a marriage (which is what I meant when I said ‘it’s unusual’ i.e. it would be unusual for a paedophile to bother with the loop holes of marriage”
Why do you say that?  If somebody’s sexually attracted to children in a culture and time that thought marrying kids and having multiple wives was socially acceptable – why not?

“if sexual abuse was the only motivation, then marriage seems to be basically unrelated and pointless”
I think you’ll find sex and marriage are very much related.  Even if marital sex with a child was frowned upon, marrying a child would give paedophiles unlimited access to them.  Then again, the Bible tells us that you can own the children of your slaves - I mean, servants - that’d be one way of getting access to children.

“Marriage itself is a protection when it is operating in a godly way. Biblical marriage is supposed to be an ‘other-focused’ relationship (a powerful example is Ephesians 5:25).”
And what if you have a person who is utterly devoted to their child bride?  If the child doesn’t object to sex, is that okay then?  If they can consent to marriage as children, can they consent to sex?

“Paedophilia on the other hand, is all about self-gratification by using a child. Marrying purely for selfish sexual gratification is not Biblically ethical.”
The OT disagrees.  It decrees marriage to be a punishment for extra-marital sexual gratification (Deut 22:28-30)!  Loveless marriage is acceptable in the Bible (Deut 22:13-19; Deut 22:20-21).

the apologist says:

10:16am | 14/12/10

@Steely Dan:

Ok, first thing I’ve got to set you straight on. You said: “I’ll explain this for the last time.  Atheism is incapable of explaining anything…”. What you don’t realise is that the way you answer the question of ‘is there a God?’ has far-reaching implications for how you view the universe and explain everything else. You say atheism can’t explain anything, but the fact that you are an atheist means that you then explain everything from an atheistic perspective – thus my comments on the inability of atheism in explaining certain matters. It’s a worldview alright.

You said: “It certainly is dealt with”. Well you’ve taken a lot of words to try and prove that you’ve dealt with it, but the bottom line is that the argument being used is ‘it’s obvious, therefore we can trust and use it’. From a rational point of view, that is not dealt with. There is a sharp distinction between acknowledging the apparent reality of something and logically and rationally explaining its existence and origins as you admitted. Your worldview is incapable of giving a rational account of reason itself without engaging in circular reasoning – which is not a fallacy by the way. The definition of circular reasoning is that a proposition to be proven is presumed in the premise – which is precisely what you need to do if you attempt to rationally account for the existence of logic.

You said:  “But the laws of logic are laws, not a hypothesis or a theory.  We don’t need to establish why the laws are how they are to note that they exist.” Correct, you do not necessarily need to prove something to use it and observe that it works, but this does not change the fact that you cannot give a reasonable/logical account of its existence. But knowing logic works and using it does not go anywhere near explaining it. That you can use something without understanding how it works is obvious (e.g. I use my car every day and have no idea how it actually works) – but this does not negate the necessity or importance of actually explaining it.

You said: “Brains are not chance occurrences.  We have well-understood biological systems that produce brains.” You must be joking. The fundamental premise of evolution is that unintelligent, nonsentient (thereby being governed by chance) forces are causally responsible for the development and ongoing regulation of all life. At base, evolution argues that all life arose by chance. You said: “Cars don’t form by chance.  We know how cars are made.” But the brains and hands that made cars apparently formed by chance and so cars are ultimately the result of chance are they not?

You said: “Why do you say that?  Does the existence of atoms exclude the possibility of logic being valid?” If the universe is only a whole bunch of existing atoms then yes, logic should not properly exist. When was the last time you saw a flowing river produce something that looked like logic? Or perhaps a mudslide? An exploding star even? We should not exist, and logic should not exist if atoms are all that exists. Even then, the immensely complex nature of atoms shows that even atoms should not exist if atoms are all there is (as naturalism/materialism asserts).

You said: “The Spaghetti Monster isn’t a straw man, and neither is Makeitupasyougoism.” Yes they are. They set up their own version of a faith which is not comparable with Christian faith – and thus when the ridiculousness of the spaghetti faith is apparent, they think they’re showing the apparent ridiculousness of the Christian faith. All they are doing is tearing down their straw man without meaningfully engaging with Christian faith. 

You said: “And what is your definition of faith?” faith could simply be termed trust. You put faith in your seat every time you sit in it, you put faith in someone when they say they will do it and you believe them. I put my trust in God and the promises He has made in His word.

You said: “It wasn’t a ridiculous proposition!  The Devil said ‘prove it’ and Jesus said ‘no’.” What Jesus said was that that is not the nature of faith – the same answer that I gave to you.

“I’m not completely sure what you’re trying to ask.” I put forward an opposing ethical judgment and wanted to see whether you had anything other than your own subjective ethical opinion with which to counter it. In other words, please try and tell me why my scenario is wrong.

Steely Dan says:

10:32am | 14/12/10

“Sigh, you seem to be so closed minded to what I’m trying to say that you can’t even see what I’m trying to say and frequently misinterpret it.”
Let me try and summarise it, you like slavery, so long as it’s not ‘oppressive’.  You believe that it’s okay to buy a person – or take them when they’re born to one of your existing slaves – and make them work for you.  You think it’s okay to beat them if they were misbehaving, and you think it’s acceptable to stop them from ever leaving you, even if a better work situation arose.  Is that misinterpreting anything?

“Entering into slavery was something that was undertaken in times of economical desperation”
Sounds exploitative.  Why not take on an employee?  Why not sponsor them?  Those sound like real acts of mercy.

“I don’t need to, and I’m instructed to avoid it if I can (1 Corinthians 7: 21-23).”
Why avoid it?  Could it be that (gasp) being a slave is not desirable? 
“And the rest of the Bible makes it amply clear that He is a God of justice so we can trust His judgment.”
He punishes people for the sins of their parents.  He kills innocent children.  He tortures people to prove to Satan that they’re loyal.  Justice?  It’s indistinguishable from tyranny.
“If you can’t read the first few chapters and clearly tell that the Jews were being oppressed, then you need to take a long hard look at yourself.”
Nice try.  Let’s go over it together.  Exodus 1:11 explicitly says the Jews were being oppressed – but only with forced labour, and we know you don’t class that as oppression.  Then they’re worked ‘ruthlessly’ – still, nothing you would object to there, hard work isn’t oppression.  The only thing that Pharaoh does wrong during this time (by your rules) is try to kill the male Hebrew children (what kind of horrible entity would try to kill innocent children?), and that’s not oppression, that’s just murder.  So is there anything wrong with the slavery in Exodus?

“That’s the whole point of the gospel which is at the very centre of Christianity – God is a God of justice, and so it is inconsistent with His very being for Him to suspend justice and show mercy.”
So what you mean is: God made the rules so when He breaks them He’s just making immaculate exceptions.  God is free to do whatever He wants because He is justice.  The only thing that’s consistent with God’s justice is that it’s God doing everything.

“No. God is intrinsically just, so he doesn’t order people to do unjust things (which is what you’re suggesting He could do).”
So God ordering the killing of children isn’t unjust, because it was God who did it.  I think I’m getting it now.

“Since God is altogether morally righteous, anything he commands is consistent with that righteousness”
So He can’t lose!

“You said: “So what you’re saying is there isn’t a definitively legislated slave system.” *smacks hand on face*”
I’ll take your non-response as an admission that you can’t provide me with one.

“And yes, it is inconsistent with our national context as it is entirely illegal. I didn’t think I’d need to try and convince you of that.”
Why do you care about human laws?  And I still can’t think of a way that it would be illegal if you were volunteering.

“*smacks hand on face again*. I told you something, but you clearly read what you wanted to see…”
3:42pm 26/11/10:  You said that “If I lived in a society that conformed to the revealed system, and a master was justly punishing a slave in accordance with the law, I would not have an issue.”  You also said “I would note that there is a difference between an unprovoked attack on one’s maid… and the lawful exercise of just punishment.”  You note that you recognise these views are “out of step with modern legal standards”.  How am I supposed to interpret that?
“No, I oppose it because it is morally wrong. When wrong happens, we have a responsibility to stand up and say what’s right.”
And do you have a moral responsibility to argue for legal punishment for victimless crime?  Do you have a right to outlaw Hinduism?

“You would have stood up and said the holocaust was wrong would you not?”
Was the holocaust an agreement between consenting adults?  How is this a good analogy at all?

“I thought I asked you to avoid simplistic belief statements? Proof please.”
Q:  Do you want to be forced to work for one person for the rest of your life, even when better employment options are available?  It’s not simplistic, it’s simple.

the apologist says:

03:43pm | 14/12/10

@Steely Dan:

Re. paedophilia

Well, apart from the fact that you completely disregarded my central argument from Ephesians that a husband is morally responsible to love his wife (which is a strong enough argument in itself to show that sexual exploitation within marriage is not Biblically ethical – and consequently sexual exploitation [motivated by paedophilia] of a child in marriage is not ethical), there are answers to the other arguments you raised.

One of the main issues you raised was that of consent (e.g. “can a six your old decide who they want to be with for the rest of their lives… If they can consent to marriage as children, can they consent to sex?...” ), which is a non-argument in the Biblical ethical system. Why do I say that? Because children are under the responsibility of their parents. Their parents make the decisions while they are children and their part is to obey (Ephesians 6 v 1-4).

This means that the parents are responsible for the exercise of their authority over their own children, and they are instructed to be the caretakers of their children. If a parent was faced with a proposition of giving a daughter away in marriage for instance, they are responsible for making a decision that is in the best interests of their daughter. If a dad had his daughter’s best interests in mind as he is required to according to Biblical ethics, can you imagine him giving her away to a 55 year old paedophile and still being able to say he was morally acting in her best interests? I don’t think so. Can you imagine him allowing her to be married off as a child? It would require exceptional circumstances. The fact that parents are clearly responsible for bringing up children mandates that it is normal for children to stay with their parents until they are mature enough to marry and start their only families.
You said: “Why do you say that?  If somebody’s sexually attracted to children in a culture and time that thought marrying kids and having multiple wives was socially acceptable – why not?” I said it because paedophilia is usually strictly associated with sexual drive – not the patterns of relationships and marriage more broadly.

You said: “I think you’ll find sex and marriage are very much related.” I never said they weren’t! Again, the point was that paedophilia is generally a purely sexual perversion – not something which recognises the healthy aspects of a wholesome marriage relationship. Of course sex is a significant aspect of marriage, but it is one part of the puzzle. With paedophilia, sex is basically the sole motivator.

You said: “The OT disagrees.  It decrees marriage to be a punishment for extra-marital sexual gratification (Deut 22:28-30)!  Loveless marriage is acceptable in the Bible (Deut 22:13-19; Deut 22:20-21).” Well, there’s another can of worms – what is love? If you’re like the average person, you probably almost solely relate it to emotional feelings. The Biblical definition of love is different. Love is primarily about responsibility and what you actually do – the emotions are the carriages following the train – the train being what you actually do - i.e. loving someone is consistently doing what is best for them, not just feeling fuzzy about them. Thus you shouldn’t fall out of love, you commit yourself and take actions. Feelings rise and wane at times, but love is much broader and deeper than them. Anyways, that was a bit of context, now to get back to the references…
Deut 22:28-30 is primarily a law instituted to rectify a wrong on the part of consensual sex between two people outside of marriage. Because sex is morally wrong outside of marriage, it follows that the consequences of two single people having sex is that they should get married. Obviously it’s not ideal that they’ve done the wrong thing to begin with, but it is a just solution to what was an act of wrong on the part of the two partaking in the act.
As for Deut 22:13-19 – it basically illustrates the point I made on love i.e. that it is not primarily and only a feeling (which is kind of a pathetic notion). It is much deeper. It calls on the man in the situation outlined to man-up, take responsibility, and love his wife as he should. You can guarantee that if you start loving your wife Biblically, the emotions will soon follow. Not quite sure what you were trying to get at by referring to the promiscuous daughter passage in Deut 22:20-21 - it didn;t seem to refer to marriage from what I could see.

Steely Dan says:

04:42pm | 14/12/10

@ apologist

“You say atheism can’t explain anything, but the fact that you are an atheist means that you then explain everything from an atheistic perspective”
I don’t explain everything.  I don’t claim to know everything. But when I do explain things I don’t start with ‘the sky is blue because firstly there is no god’, because nothing I know has come from my atheism. Just as nothing I know comes from my lack of a belief in voodoo. Theism is a belief in a god/s, and a belief that the god/s’ existence has real day-to-day consequences.  Atheism is a lack of a belief in gods - literally ‘not theism’. So being ‘not a theist’ is not a worldview or a philosophy, just as not collecting stamps isn’t a hobby.  You can be an atheist and have a worldview consistent with atheism, but not believing in a god that defines your worldview is not a worldview.

“There is a sharp distinction between acknowledging the apparent reality of something and logically and rationally explaining its existence and origins as you admitted.”
I don’t need to explain its existence to acknowledge its reliability. 

“Correct, you do not necessarily need to prove something to use it and observe that it works, but this does not change the fact that you cannot give a reasonable/logical account of its existence.”
And I don’t have to.  I’d like to be able to, and I will continue to try – but I won’t kill myself because I can’t. You claiming that you do have a one-word answer is all well and good, but is it valid? My inability to produce an alternative hypothesis does not make yours the logical default.

“The fundamental premise of evolution is that unintelligent, nonsentient (thereby being governed by chance) forces are causally responsible for the development and ongoing regulation of all life.”
‘Governed by chance?’ Trees don’t pop in and out of existence randomly. If you plant a tree in a yard we can tell roughly how fast it will grow, how high it will get and how successful the growth will be according to how much water it’s likely to receive, the quality of the soil it grows in and its access to sunlight.  It’s staying alive is dependent on natural systems. Evolution isn’t random; it’s the combination of an inability to identically reproduce and the process of natural, logical tendency for traits that enhance reproduction to be passed on.

“When was the last time you saw a flowing river produce something that looked like logic?”
What do you mean, ‘look like logic’?  It looks like it’s obeying the laws of physics.  It doesn’t look illogical, if that’s what you mean. Did you think that I believe that hydrogen and oxygen atoms flowing past each other would produce a sentient being capable of acknowledging logical laws?

“Even then, the immensely complex nature of atoms shows that even atoms should not exist if atoms are all there is”
So our inability to understand how complex atoms came to be proves the existence of an infinitely more complex creator who doesn’t have to be created?

“when the ridiculousness of the spaghetti faith is apparent, they think they’re showing the apparent ridiculousness of the Christian faith.”
You don’t understand the genesis (pun intended) of the FSM. It was created to counter the claim that religion should be taught as science in schools. The creator argued that his religion was just as much a science as Christianity was, and demanded equal teaching time for the FSM. That’s not a straw man. A straw man is when you misrepresent beliefs and then attack the belief that no-one actually holds. Makeitupasyougoism isn’t a straw man, because I’m not claiming that your beliefs are just things you make up as you go. But it’s just as reliable as wishing things were true and assuming that they are.

“faith could simply be termed trust.”
I’ve got a better term for trust: trust. Trust is rational. I put my conditional trust in my chair because I’m confident in the skills of that manufacturer, etc. I don’t trust my chair unconditionally – that’s what is commonly referred to as faith.  Do you trust your God conditionally? 

“What Jesus said was that that is not the nature of faith – the same answer that I gave to you.”
That sounds like unconditional trust to me. If I asked a priest for proof that god exists and he said ‘just trust me’, would you blame me for walking away?

“I put forward an opposing ethical judgment and wanted to see whether you had anything other than your own subjective ethical opinion with which to counter it. In other words, please try and tell me why my scenario is wrong.”
I can’t answer that without you answering what I asked you: What’s the potential gain to myself, and the potential loss to the other person? Are you saying that the loss to the other person is in itself the gain?

Steely Dan says:

12:41pm | 15/12/10

@ the apologist

“Well, apart from the fact that you completely disregarded my central argument from Ephesians that a husband is morally responsible to love his wife”
As you said – what is love?  What if somebody thinks that a sexual relationship with a six-year old is loving?  Sex with children is sexual abuse whether it’s done with ‘good’ intentions or not. 

“consequently sexual exploitation [motivated by paedophilia] of a child in marriage is not ethical”
Are there other motivations for sexual exploitation of children in marriage?

“Why do I say that? Because children are under the responsibility of their parents. Their parents make the decisions while they are children and their part is to obey (Ephesians 6 v 1-4).”
So arranged marriages are okay!  Consent to marry isn’t an issue at all! 
“Can you imagine him allowing her to be married off as a child? It would require exceptional circumstances.”
I can imagine it, unfortunately.  History is full of examples in lots of cultures (including Jesus’) of women marrying and giving birth very young with parental consent. 

“I said it because paedophilia is usually strictly associated with sexual drive – not the patterns of relationships and marriage more broadly.”
I know you said it’s ‘not associated’ with regular patterns.  But what people think of when they hear the words ‘relationship’ and ‘marriage’ isn’t relevant.  If paedophiles could get away with marrying children in I don’t think it’s bizarre to think that they’d try.
“Again, the point was that paedophilia is generally a purely sexual perversion – not something which recognises the healthy aspects of a wholesome marriage relationship… With paedophilia, sex is basically the sole motivator.”
I’m not in a healthy relationship with a woman simply because of my heterosexuality.  I could be having one-night stands with multiple women and still be heterosexual (some would say that would be ‘more’ heterosexual!).  Sexuality alone doesn’t determine one’s attitude to relationships. 

“If you’re like the average person, you probably almost solely relate it to emotional feelings. The Biblical definition of love is different. Love is primarily about responsibility and what you actually do”
I want to care for my partner and do what is best for her because I love her – the ‘feeling fuzzy’ and responsibility are inextricably linked.  Apparently Biblical love doesn’t need the emotion at all.  Responsibility without the ‘fuzzy feeling’ is just responsibility.  It’s not love.

“Because sex is morally wrong outside of marriage, it follows that the consequences of two single people having sex is that they should get married.”
‘It follows’?  You seem to be invoking rational language here.  There is no rational reason why two consenting adults should be tied to a potentially loveless relationship for doing something that hurt nobody.  What you mean to say is that ‘the consequences of two single people having sex is that they should get married – because that’s what God said they had to do’.

“You can guarantee that if you start loving your wife Biblically, the emotions will soon follow.”
If you make two people responsible for each other for long enough they’ll end up loving each other?  Kind of like Stockholm Syndrome?  I suppose you’d have to believe that if you thought it was okay to pick spouses for your children.

“Not quite sure what you were trying to get at by referring to the promiscuous daughter passage in Deut 22:20-21 - it didn’t seem to refer to marriage from what I could see.”
It did.  Read 13-15.  If a man marries a woman (or girl) and after he sleeps with her, dislikes her and claims she was not a virgin (whether she was not a virgin by choice or force is not addressed) – he can forget that whole ‘love’ promise and turn her over to the authorities.  Then Deut 22:20-21 says that if she and her family cannot prove that she was a virgin when she was married – she gets killed.  Stoned to death, in a loving, Biblical way.
Think about what a joke of a trial that would be.  How on earth would a woman (who at this point has had sex with her ‘loving’ husband) prove that she was a virgin when she got married?  Can you see the problem with giving the burden of proof to the defendant?  And if you know post-Bronze-Age medicine, can you see the problem with trying to establish virginity even if the woman hadn’t slept with her husband?
Can you honestly tell me this practice doesn’t sicken you?  Can you imagine this happening to your daughter?

the apologist says:

05:08pm | 15/12/10

Steely, just to let you know, i’m out and about in coming weeks. I’ll try to reply promptly, but if responses are slow you’ll know why.
Thanks for the conversation, I appreciate it - not sure how long it’ll kick on for (it seems to have been going for some time!), but i’m happy to keep going with it.

choice is key says:

08:03am | 18/11/10

I think you missed the point Grumpy Old Man. The Gay and Lesbian community don’t want “special” rights - they want the same rights. I believe the issue here is about choice. Heterosexual couples get to choose whether they want to live together or get married or not. Having ALL those options available to same sex couples is not unreasonable.

And for all those people out there that seem to think that making marriage available to same sex couples will invalidate marriage between a man and a woman - why are you so insecure? You still get to refer to your partner as your “husband” or “wife” so I don’t think people will start thinking you’re gay, just because the legal definition of marriage is extended to include same sex couples.

Jeremy says:

08:30am | 18/11/10

How is equality “special treatment”?

Danny B says:

08:53am | 18/11/10

@ Jeremy

It depends on whether you consider those asking for equality to be equal as a person or some sort of ‘under-class’.  I prefer the former.

Heather says:

10:28am | 18/11/10

Well, it can be argued that gay and lesbian couples already do have the same “rights” as everyone else: everyone over a certain age has the “right” to marry someone of the opposite sex.

What is being asked for is an extra “right” (one I actually have no problem with, just to put my comment into the correct context): the right of everyone, gay or straight, to marry someone of the same sex.

Having said that, I do understand why people have difficulty with the semantics. If we respect *everyone’s* religious beliefs (as we should: Christian, humanistic, Islamic, Hindi, the Church of Charlie Fanakapan, atheism, etc), then this must also be respected. Seriously, the whole argument is semantics, as my example regarding “rights” shows. It’s all very well that change will “do no harm” (and I think that is probably so), but for some, the concept of spiritual harm—to the gay individual, to society, etc—is very real. While I may not agree, that doesn’t give me the right to rubbish that concern. Instead of name-calling, perhaps working together (not easy, and I would not resent being called pie-in-the-sky for this) would be better. Campaigns such as “gays go to hell” and the “Eff you Tshirt” videos do not help, at all.

Personally, as a divorced straight woman, I have rejected the concept of marriage (while not rejecting long-term commitment to a man), simply because of the religious connotations it holds, the fact that my violent ex-husband held such notions and my desire not to be legally trapped in such a union, ever again. Many of my gay friends actually agree with that sentiment… they, themselves, would never get “married” but they want the same recognition of their relationship on a legal level that heterosexual couples have, without having to jump through extra hoops to get that (such as laws of inheritance, power of attorney, etc).

Unfortunately, it is impossible to respect both religious beliefs in regards to semantics over the word “marriage” and the need for an extra component in the Marriage Act to allow same sex legal recognition, for everyone: it comes down to an either/or proposition and this is where all of the “flaws” in the argument (from both sides) get stuck.

This was handled in 10th century England (during which time the ideal of marriage as a “Church” thing was still being heavily disputed) by having a civil ceremony (most often used by the Danes), and a religious one (so that the Church would recognise the union). This is what occurred when Emma of Normandy married Canute Sweynsson—one for the legals (ie, at that time, the Danes), and one for the Church (partly to make sure that Canute would not return to his former, common-law-only wife). Contrary to current popular belief, historically “marriage” has NOT always been a religious rite. Scripturally for a Judaeo-Christian perspective, it is not; and it was not always a recognised “Churchy” rite either. In fact, scripturally speaking, the act of having sex itself can make a marriage, if the intention is a public one—cf, “and he went in to her, and he knew her and they were married”, the rest is simply a recognition by the community that these two people are joined, and not available to anyone else, and the act of ceremony, in fact, is a Roman Pagan tradition taken on board as a legal necessity by the early Christians (the ring we wear on our left hand is a remnant of the Roman ceremony).

So, religiously speaking from that point of view, marriage as a legality is not Judaeo-Christian/Islamic (it is, however a Pagan religious rite from a Greek/Roman gods perspective), however the “man and woman” is. As such, there should be no *legal* impediment towards civil gay marriages based on religious mores themselves. The religious implications of the unions are something that is between that couple and their God/dess, if they believe, and is no one else’s business—but is not something that should be taken lightly by anyone, including the gay community.

In other words, respect needs to go both ways. I agree that same-sex unions should be allowed, however, it would be good if this could be done with the respect that freedom of belief in this country affords us (and yes, some of that respect needs to go the other way, as well). calling people with genuine belief (whether this is considered erroneous or not) “homophobic” in the absence of an actual fear of the gay and lesbian community or violence towards the same, is counterproductive—for both sides of the argument. Calling the gay community fodder for hell is just as counterproductive and nasty.

Both sides need to stop arguing, and start looking for points of agreement. Forcing the matter through will not address this.

Jeremy says:

10:50am | 18/11/10

“Well, it can be argued that gay and lesbian couples already do have the same “rights” as everyone else: everyone over a certain age has the “right” to marry someone of the opposite sex.”

Um, no. I’m permitted to marry a woman, but my female friend isn’t. That’s discrimination. She’s denied a right I have, by virtue of her gender.

As for “let’s find points of agreement” - equality is kind of something you either have or you don’t. Anything short of equality is not equality, and I’m yet to hear a single rational argument why the government should discriminate against gay people.

grumpy old man says:

12:31pm | 18/11/10

Danny B, et al.
I’m not against equity, but which rights are currently with held? Cannot same sex couples decide whether to live together or conduct a civil union? I keep hearing about ” same rights”, but no one has yet ( at least that I have read) enunciated these allegedly withheld rights. I would have no issue with same sex and different sex couples having the same rights, that just seems sensible, I do have a problem with the word marriage, but then again, I also have a problem with the connotations of the word “wife”( never use it, it sounds so demeaning), and the word “gay “used in this context.

Hamish says:

12:32pm | 18/11/10

Jeremy, if a straight man can’t marry another man and a gay man can’t marry another man, it’s not discrimination, it’s the same for everybody.

Old Clive says:

07:41am | 18/11/10

I think that should be cock-in-the-whole

TrueOz says:

10:00am | 18/11/10

@Old Clive

I’ve misjudged you - you have a sense of humor!

Daniel says:

07:36am | 18/11/10

Old Clive, what are you on about?

Gender identity?

It sounds like you are equating homosexuality with pedophilia. I know you can’t be doing that because nobody is that ignorant.

Clover says:

08:31am | 18/11/10

you REALLY need to get back on your medication

T.Chong says:

08:31am | 18/11/10

Dear, oh dear Old Clive , yes, once again that old lie that equates homosexulity with pedophillia - “chasing YOUNG boys…,” ( your words).
“take your mind back, I dont know when, sometime when it always semed to be just us and them /
girls that wore pink, boys that wore blue /
boys that grew up to better men than me or you / 
and so it goes around again / now and the we wonder who the real men are ( right Clive) ?   
Apologies to Joe Jackson
PS Dont call me a faggott , not unless you are a friend.

RGG says:

09:36am | 18/11/10

The fact that you perceive this as an attack on heterosexual marriage is astounding. It is not. This is an extension of equal rights to another sector of the population.

Stop, think, and then tell me how allowing gays to marry will prevent heterosexuals getting married, or indeed, doing anything other than continue to discriminate against homosexuals. This does not affect heterosexual marriage.

Syl says:

09:40am | 18/11/10

Wow….
I bet you believe Elvis is still alive too….

AliceC says:

09:57am | 18/11/10

@Rich

Homosexual marriage = caucasian heterosexual couples banned from breeding???

What are you taking and where can I get some???? You have provided my LOL for the day!

Rich says:

10:33am | 18/11/10

Perhaps you should educate yourselves on the Frankfurt school of Marxism.  Political correctness, feminist movement, immigration, gay movement. Totally decadent movements which in no way aid the survival of western civilization.

They have equal rights, I can’t marry a man either so what is the problem ?

Alice, perhaps you should re-read what I wrote before high fiving yourself and attempting to ridicule me. I said they will likely work towards it once they’ve got their marriage not that the very act of them getting married will prevent heteros from getting married.

You think they will be happy once they get marriage? No, next will be quotas for employment etc etc. I actually couldn’t care less if they get married as such, I simply wish for the annihilation of their lobby.

So much indoctrination in this country by the medi/universities/schools

AliceC says:

01:40pm | 18/11/10

@Rich

So you’re saying that minority groups who have been discriminated against do not deserve to try and reverse this? The reason there are lobbies and movements, is because people have had enough being treated like second class citizens.

And how do you stem from homsexuals getting married to asking for quotas in the workplace, or preventsing heteorsexual people from breeding. You state:

‘..they will likely work towards it once they’ve got their marriage not that the very act of them getting married will prevent heteros from getting married.’

Where did you find this information? Have you met gay people who have a goal to remove the rights of heterosexual people, and prevent them from breeding? I am honestly confused as to where your logic comes from…

Steely Dan says:

10:12am | 18/11/10

@ Greg

““secular legal and political framework” Is there such a thing? Our legal and political framework has been built on foundations that are very religious in nature.”
Hi Greg, not sure which country you’re from, but here in Australia, the document that sets out the foundations of our nation is something called the ‘Constitution’.  In this Constitution we have a Section (116) which states the following:
“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

I hope this has been informative, my foreign friend!

RGG says:

10:21am | 18/11/10

If marriage is a religious institution, divorce should be illegal. Why don’t churches campaign for this? Jesus never mentioned homosexuality once, but had a lot of harsh things to say about divorce.

Let’s not even get into s 116 of the Consitution, which pretty much codifies the separation of church and state. That would be too inconvenient, wouldn’‘t it?

LNC says:

11:03am | 18/11/10

The only problem is Ted, gay people haven’t really been ‘given’ civil unions. Currently, civil unions are available only in Tasmania and the ACT. Relationship registers, but not civil unions, are available in Victoria and part of NSW (Sydney City only). These unions are recognised by the federal government but are only available to people living in the area and are not recognised by other Australian states. So gay people in NSW (outside Sydney City), WA, Queensland, NT and SA don’t have access to civil unions or equivalent relationship recognition and those that do can’t move states without having to re-register their relationship.

If a gay couple is thinking of moving states, they’ll likely have to look up what their rights will be and to what extent their relationship will be recognised (if at all).

I think you’ll find that most gay people would be satisfied with access to civil unions that provided that same rights as marriage, but this is currently unavailable.

Farmer says:

12:59pm | 18/11/10

@ LNC - no, they won’t be satisfied & stop whining there. When did it become acceptable for people to campaign on the basis of what they prefer sexually? I am a heterosexual female but I do not ask for government laws to be changed or allowances to be made in my job or my community based on how I prefer to achieve orgasm.

@ Ted - your comment should be the FINAL comment. Perfectly summed up! Thank you for your common sense.

Keep your sex at home, people. If you want respect, you have to treat others with respect first. I have yet to meet a homosexual person who does not inform you if their sexual preference as part of a “normal” conversation. While speaking with a heterosexual person, the person’s choice of sexual pleasuring rarely enters the conversation.

AliceC says:

01:46pm | 18/11/10

@Farmer

They want equal rights, and it’s the govenrment that has decided to include sexuality as a way of defining whether people should marry or not. If gay people could marry, then there would not need to be any discussion, they would not need to campaign, and you can go back and live in your bubble.

If a gay couple live together for 30 years, and one dies, the parner does not have any rights compared to the same situation with a heterosexual couple.  Imagine being told that you have no legal right to the property you and your partner built together, or the wealth you accumulated together. That’s why the gay community are making a stand.

Farmer says:

03:57pm | 18/11/10

@ AliceC - no, I don’t think “the Govt” has discussed actual real live sex in the pursuit of “law”. If you are referring to the preference of a person to have intercourse with another of the same sex, then the Government (whoever that may be, hmmm very vague), then it should not be up for “discussion”. The fact that the majority of homosexual people do not make their relationship “legal” by way of a statement with a solicitor, as many defacto heterosexual couples do, suggests that they are not entirely committed to a single partner. This is no bubble: we have all heard the horror stories of heterosexual couples living together then being diddled out of “what’s due to them”. Make a commitment by way of a Statutory Declaration at the beginning of your relationship, just as heterosexual defacto couples should do, and stop hiding from your families. Then we may respect you for your choice of how to achieve orgasm.

The happy people are making a stand because they love attention. It;s generally not enough to pepper their conversations with numerous references to their lifestyle choice - they also need to make it “law” for us “heteros” to salute them and tug the forelock when they mince by.

Like I said before, keep it in the bedroom, folks.

Trude says:

02:23am | 21/11/10

Did you know that inter-racial marriages were against the law, in some Australian states, as little as 60 years ago? Particularly for Indigenous Australians who were considered to be a different genus (see: species, that’s right, sub-human). Apologists for that law said that wasn’t discriminatory either “because it applied to both men and women”. The same arguments used today against gay marriage, were used against inter-racial marriage. Unnatural, against God’s will, damaging to the fabric of society, would take away the meaning of ‘true marriages’, abomination, would be confusing and damaging for children of the union… the list goes on.

Religious organisations had similar views on interfaith marriages, in fact some still do.

Did the world come to an end when people of different races or faiths married?

Have you been married Ted? Was your wife the exact same match racially as you? Would you have felt discriminated against because one of her ancestors was born somewhere different from you and you weren’t allowed to marry?

Oh and where did you get the idea that gays have the right to ‘civil unions’ here? They don’t. Hospitals can refuse entry to a patient’s partner because they’re not married, or refuse to let their partner make decisions for them when they’re unable. Family can dispute wills, because the partner wasn’t a husband or wife. Children can and have been removed after the death of a partner and placed in foster care, because the other wasn’t a natural parent and wasn’t allowed to formerly adopt the child. Some insurance companies will not pay out to a same sex partner, because there was no marriage.

What’s it to you if same sex partners marry? Just how does it really impact on your life? It doesn’t, other than offending your bigotry.

Connie says:

09:00am | 18/11/10

How about calling it a Marriage….because that is what it is.

Steely Dan says:

10:17am | 18/11/10

@ KH

How about we give those blacks the equivalent of the vote, but call it something like ‘Indigenous Citizens Representative Entitlements’ instead?

If you think that sentence sounds racist, you should realise that your first sentence sounds just as discriminatory.

Duff says:

10:51am | 18/11/10

KH - that is a very reasonable suggestion and I cannot see any reason why that should not be an acceptable compromise for all concerned.  Gays get everything hetero couples get and the religious preserve their institution.  Solved.

KH says:

11:29am | 18/11/10

Steely Dan - I am just pointing out the stupidity of the argument - you can’t claim a word has a constant meaning, when meanings change, get added or even subtracted.  Its just a word, and not much of an argument.  I am asking if these same fools would be OK if gay people had all the same rights etc, but didn’t call it marriage - Im guessing they would still come up with something to justify their ridiculous position…..........

Duff says:

11:53am | 18/11/10

@Steely, that’s a silly comparision and it bears no resemblance to the debate.  Look, the author has said, quite clearly, that “marriage equality” is about human rights, not semantics.  “It is about the right to have your relationship legally recognised, your next of kin status respected in a medical emergency, your children’s inheritance rights protected.”

Ok, I agree with that.  So let us allow homosexuals the right to be “married” under the eyes of the State but, as a mark of respect for the people who hold that term dear to their hearts for religious reasons, we call it another term that is acceptable to everyone, including gay people.  What the heck is wrong with that?

Then we can move on to more important things.

trixie melodian says:

01:15pm | 18/11/10

@Duff “as a mark of respect for the people who hold that term dear to their hearts for religious reasons, we call it another term that is acceptable to everyone”

Because marriage is NOT the preserve of the religious and their churches. I was married in a completely non-religious ceremony - no hymns, no prayers, no church, no minister. My marriage is just as valid and legally recognised as someone who was married in a church by a priest with a full mass. In fact a civil marriage is even valid than a marriage that was performed by a priest but not lodged with the (secular) Office of Births Deaths and Marriages.

Marriage is a secular, government-run institution and as such should conform to the non-discriminatory standards we expect of our government.

Steely Dan says:

01:36pm | 18/11/10

@ Duff

“that’s a silly comparision and it bears no resemblance to the debate.”
Don’t just tell me that it’s silly, explain why you think it’s silly.  If an ‘Indigenous Citizens Representative Entitlement’ gave all the same voting rights as a ‘vote’, would you think it unreasonable if aborigines complained about the name?

“Look, the author has said, quite clearly, that “marriage equality” is about human rights, not semantics.”
I’m not Kerryn Phelps, for the record. 

“So let us allow homosexuals the right to be “married” under the eyes of the State but, as a mark of respect for the people who hold that term dear to their hearts for religious reasons”
Why do I have to respect bigotry?  I would hope that the Australian government would not ‘legislate in respect of religion’, and treat everyone equally.  If anybody - even if they are the majority - object to equal treatment, they can leave.

“we call it another term that is acceptable to everyone, including gay people.”
As long as nobody feels like they’re being treated ‘separate but equal’, you’ve got a point.  But I can tell you now there are gay people who want to be married, not ‘civil unioned’, just as there are plenty of heterosexual couples who don’t want to be ‘civil unioned’.
There’s a thought - would you be happy letting ALL new marriages be deemed ‘civil unions’?

Duff says:

02:12pm | 18/11/10

@Trixie - it appears the difference between your view and mine is that I believe that the traditional definition of marriage is one which we most certainly have adopted from our religious heritage and it still has, for many people in this country, a very important religious and cultural significance.  I respect that, just as I respect the rights of homosexuals to have a gay “marriage” that is equal to heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law. 

The obvious solution is to have an alternative definition that affords these rights whilst still preserving the sanctity of marriage. 

What you seem to be saying is that we should go further than this and essentially shove a new definition down the throats of the religious and frankly I cannot see any reason why that needs to happen. 

If it is about “human rights” as the Author says (and not some other, hidden agenda) that should be a totally acceptable compromise.  Please note the word “compromise” as that is I believe what this situation requires to put this issue to bed, once and for all.  In another hundred years it will matter naught.

trixie melodian says:

02:39pm | 18/11/10

@Duff - what, you mean the “traditional definition of marriage” that involves the sale of a woman by her father to another man (usually a complete stranger and much older) to shore up political, territorial or financial deals?

You can’t pick and choose *which* definition of marriage from which particular time in human history suits your argument. And besides, your idea of “traditional, religious marriage” overseen only by the church is as obsolete as my archaic example.

The current definition of marriage is as a secular, government-managed institution which has nothing to do with churches or god. By that definition (surely the most accurate one to refer to) there is no good reason to deny these rights to members of our socity based solely on their sexuality.

Duff says:

03:14pm | 18/11/10

@Steely - it’s a silly comparison because the word “vote” has a very bland definition that doesn’t refer to men, women, pigs, dogs or anything at all other than the act of casting a ballot in support of a politician.  If you gave blacks the vote and called it something else, yes, it would sound pretty disciminatory because you’d be singling them out for no other reason than, well, to discriminate against them.  But the term “marriage” has a very particular meaning that does in fact refer to a man and a woman and it has been handed down to us from our religious historical roots and forms the basis of a big part of our cultural heritage.  So, by using a different term to adopt this union in the eyes of the law to accomodate same sex couples we remain respectful to our traditional “marriage” concept while at the same time modernising our society.  And no one gets hurt!  I honestly cannot see the problem with that, but perhaps i’m not being radical enough.

Steely Dan says:

06:11pm | 18/11/10

@ Duff

“the word “vote” has a very bland definition that doesn’t refer to men, women, pigs, dogs or anything at all other than the act of casting a ballot in support of a politician.”
Did you think I was talking about the definition as defined by dictionary editors?  I’m talking about the only definition that counts - the legal definition.

“But the term “marriage” has a very particular meaning that does in fact refer to a man and a woman and it has been handed down to us from our religious historical roots and forms the basis of a big part of our cultural heritage.”
Are cultural heritage is our history.  It doesn’t determine our future.  Bad laws are bad laws, sentimental value or not.

“So, by using a different term to adopt this union in the eyes of the law to accomodate same sex couples we remain respectful to our traditional “marriage” concept while at the same time modernising our society.  And no one gets hurt!”
Except to some people, to whom “it would sound pretty disciminatory because you’d be singling them out for no other reason than, well, to discriminate against them”.

“I honestly cannot see the problem with that, but perhaps i’m not being radical enough.”
I didn’t realise being radical was a priority.  Don’t worry, explicitly denying people equal rights is pretty radical.  Regressive, but radical.

ImaWestie says:

04:21pm | 18/11/10

Then why does becoming married give you primacy in terms of rights to the property of your spouse should s/he die - regardless of any offspring?

One of the major parties should make this a political cornerstone for the next election. For that to happen the pink brigade need to make it happen.

StefanR says:

08:59am | 18/11/10

That other injustices exist does not invalidate this one.

Steely Dan says:

10:24am | 18/11/10

@ Ben in Canberra

“Hold a referendum alongside the next fderal election, guage the result, and based on that result, introduce a bill into parliament”
No need.  We don’t need to alter the Constitution.  Wouldn’t it be far easier to introduce the legislation, vote yes in 2 mins, then carry on with the next item on the agenda?

“...the implementation of the MRRT and the NBN without due dilligence are far greater concerns.”
But you don’t ask for a plebiscite for these ‘greater concerns’...

AliceC says:

12:17pm | 18/11/10

@Cybacat
‘In my Australia an apple has always been an apple, and marriage has always been between a man and a woman’. There’s a difference between those analogies.

Stating ‘an apple has always been an apple’ is not taking into consideration what makes an apple (skin, seeds, core, etc.). Pears also fit this description, but are called pears, and doesn’t make an apple any less of an apple.

I could say ‘a marriage has always been a marriage’ being two people ‘getting married’. It does not take into account religious beliefs (or lack of in my case), colour of skin (although inter-racial marriage used to be illegal), or reproductivity.

The argument is to not change the name, or what marriage is about, it’s about including more couples to have to option to ‘get married’. It will in no way have any affect on current marriages, or future hetero ones.

jacob says:

12:45pm | 18/11/10

Good point except in my Australia (in the 1950’s) marriage was only between two white people. Some whiny, well funded populist group came along and told us we needed to extend marriage to people of opposite colour.
In my Australia them nasty Aboriginals weren’t allowed to vote then some whiny, well funded populist group came along and told us that they were people and they deserved a vote…
Apples are apples? Thats not a reason to continue an injustice

Jeremy says:

11:02am | 18/11/10

“I think that if gay people want to be respected and accepted for who they are then they should accept that they’re not equal to heterosexuals”.

I love the circular logic in your second paragraph.“Marriage must be heterosexual because non-heterosexuals do not qualify”. Asinine.

Do you genuinely want an answer to “why can’t they be satisfied with second-class status before the law”?

Darren says:

11:56am | 18/11/10

Only sacred apparently to 50% of those that marry. Otherwise there would be no divorce.

Jolanda says:

05:41pm | 18/11/10

I didn’t say that they were not equal to hetrosexuals what I said was that they were not the same as hetrosexuals and they are not because they have a same sex preference.

Sally says:

12:04pm | 18/11/10

So what’s your point?  We don’t even have civil unions.  As far as I’m concerned, that’s the main embarressment.  We’re miles behind the rest of the civilised world.

By the way, you left out Canada when naming your countries and the USA when talking about both marriage in some and civil unions in most others.

Pacci says:

03:25pm | 18/11/10

Sally - “We don’t even have civil unions.  As far as I’m concerned, that’s the main embarressment.”

Vic, NSW, ACT and Tassie perform same sex civil unions. Hope that helps lessen your embarresment.

GreekSnake says:

03:36pm | 18/11/10

Well said Markus.

“Economic powerhouses such as Belgium, Portugal and Iceland that allow same-sex marriage?”

Belgium? The same country who has a 50% income tax rate? Yes, let’s copy those guys!

Portugal? Who is almost broke and in the same fate that Greece has found itself? Yes, let’s copy those guys!

Iceland?! A country that has a population of 320,000 people? LESS than Tasmania? Yes, let’s copy those guys!

Obviously huge world leaders that we should really bow down to!... Not.

Eventually, people will realize that man and man does not work. Woman and woman does not work. Why you ask? It’s nothing religious or homophobic… it’s simply the sex. Nothing quite compares to a penis and a vagina for functionality in the act of sex. Not only do both tools fit perfectly together, they are literally made to function like this! One self lubricates and the other hardens to reveal an area more sensitive to touch. The fact that these 2 organs ALSO double as reproductive organs (who would have thought!) means surely we were just meant to do it this way.

Before I get the “male g-spot” and “females can use toys!” arguments, it is about what works for an ultimate function. Sure if all you want is to get off, you can poke another guy in the butt but you really haven’t achieved anything.

Every heard the way screws, nuts and bolts are referred to? A male thread and a female thread. A nut and bolt? That’s a marriage. Two bolts? That’s a civil union.

See the difference now?

Redeker Plan says:

11:39am | 18/11/10

sigh… Zeta, will you marry me?

Kate says:

09:20am | 19/11/10

@ Redeker Plan - your name wouldn’t happen to come from the book World War Z would it?

If so, marry me!

Jeremy says:

07:13am | 19/11/10

“Kerryn, the problem with your argument that is you are suggesting marriage, a very particular and specific social institution, is the only way to ‘recognise’ same-sex relationships when it isn’t. “

No, she’s suggesting that the only way to have equality is for the law not to discriminate against people. Which is fairly self-evident.

Either gay relationships are to be treated equally by government or they’re not. If they’re to be treated equally then there’s no reason to make up a special new name for them, or devise a supposedly “equivalent” system - the only reason to do that is if you DO want to implicitly say they’re not equal.

Which is why “civil unions” aren’t the answer. Only full equality is.

And nobody on this thread has come up with a rational reason why they shouldn’t have it.

GreekSnake says:

10:41am | 19/11/10

Jeremy, there is no full equality. That phrase implies the relationships are the same when they are clearly not.

I dare to bring up the blatantly obvious in mentioning that a gay couple cannot, no matter the assistance ever produce offspring of their combined genetic product. Never. Ever. I understand that hetersoexual couples may suffer the same fate due to illness, disease or just plain infertility but that isn’t to say they do not possess the right equipment.

A gay relationship fails where human instinct takes over. Don’t you think the urge to have children is a very heterosexual desire. One that completely contradicts any urge you have to make love to the same gender.

There is no general equality because heterosexual and homosexual are very different. But I’m sure you already knew that.

AdamC says:

11:01am | 19/11/10

Jeremy, you are doing exactly the same thing as Kerryn, just with slightly different words:

“Either gay relationships are to be treated equally by government or they’re not.”

This statement begs the question: equal to what? I would argue that you can quite easily eliminate discrimination by ensuring that gay couples are treated the same a heterosexual de facto couples. This is the obvious comparison to make.

You seem, however, to insist that equality demands not only treating gay couples’ relationships as equal to marriages but actually turning them into mariages.

I ask you, what are gay couples (and heterosexual de facto couples) missing out on that married couples receive? If there are any substantive disadvantages, the obvious way to resolve these is by creating a civil union system, not changing the meaning of marriage.

It is you, in your obviousl self-righteousness, that does not provide a rational reason for your position, just dogmatic intensity.

trixie melodian says:

01:25pm | 18/11/10

Yeah Fletcher, I’m sorry but democracy does NOT mean “majority rules” it means that every individual has the same right as every other individual to have a say in the way the country is run.

By demanding that everyone have an equal responsibility in deciding the fate of the country, we also have to recognise that we have an equal responsibility to every member of that democracy - whether they be a minority or majority group.

RGG says:

09:41am | 18/11/10

Yes, the majority rules. This especially applies to issues of equality and human rights. I mean, if the minority don’t want to be slaves, maybe they should just get more people and become the majority huh???

Dash says:

10:22am | 18/11/10

What are you on about RGG? The point is that the laws in a democracy are meant to be representative of the will of the people. In a democracy, that means by the majority, for the majority.

As ethics and morality change, so to do the laws of the land. This issue should be no diferent. Once a majority are happy to allow it, so be it. I certainly did not say, the majority need to be homosexual, before it will happen. Just that a majority of people agree with it.

What alternative are you proposing to the way laws should be made in this country RGG?

StefanR says:

11:15am | 18/11/10

No Dash, democracy is not an opinion poll (and if it were, SSM would be a reality). Perhaps you should revise your view on the way in which laws are made here (Keyword: constitution) and what a democracy actually means.

Dash says:

12:59pm | 18/11/10

Stefan. The government is formed by a majority. Legislation is passed by a majority. Democracy gives everyone a vote with the majority prevailing. All of that is enshrined in our constitution! The majority should prevail on this vote and in fact no legislation will pass our parliament without a majority in both houses. What planet are you from?

I never said democracy was an opinion poll. It represents all of us, not a sample . And it certainly doesn’t represent a minority!

What part of “the laws in a democracy are meant to be representative of the will of the people” do you disagree with? And more to the point why do you think that shouldn’t that be the case?

StefanR says:

04:24pm | 18/11/10

“What part of “the laws in a democracy are meant to be representative of the will of the people” do you disagree with? And more to the point why do you think that shouldn’t that be the case? “

I disagree with the part that suggests that everyone gets to decide whether minorities should be discriminated against or not.

Dash says:

08:21am | 19/11/10

Stefan, the point I have tried to make here is simply that once Gay marriage becomes acceptable to the majority of Australians, the law should be changed to allow it. To my mind, that’s democracy and that should be reflected by the peoples representatives sitting in parliament. The law by it’s very nature is always descriminatory against something or someone. But the law should reflect the morality and ethics of our society as a whole. And those ethics and morality are not static.

If the majority of people think it’s wrong on moral, ethical or religious grounds, then Gay people need to respect that. However, I personally think that the majority of people in this country are fine with the idea of gay marriage. If that’s the case, I think the law will and should be changed.

NicoleG says:

11:23am | 18/11/10

@Badger, I hear ya!!! I’m over it.

RGG says:

09:44am | 18/11/10

I wonder if YOU have read the Australian Constitution, particularly section 116, which specifically says that Australia cannot and will not make any laws supporting a particular religion, and effectively makes our government seperate from the church and its teachings.

I see you also reference the Old Testament. No doubt you are up to date with your sacrifices, don’t eat pork or shellfish, and stone people caught in adultery yes? If not why not? Those verses are literally right next to the OT passages which denounce homosexuality, so if one applies, surely all of them must.

Sam says:

10:21am | 18/11/10

RGG, long may you quote section 116, but it still stands that the Ten Commandments form the basis of our value and legal system. Also, if you want to look in the New Testament there is a verse from the sermon on the mount I believe that states “a man shall not sleep with another man as if he was a female”. It’s all pretty clear really. I wonder how practicing homosexuals justify verses like this and remain religious, or is this why they try to change religion to appease their discomfort?

Daniel says:

10:23am | 18/11/10

Which of these commandments have relevance to common law?
-There is only one God
- Don’t make false idols
-Don’t blaspheme
- Respect your parents
- Don’t fool around with someone else’s wife
- Don’t desire your neighbors’ property (with wife being described as property)

RGG says:

10:45am | 18/11/10

Wow Sam, you really do yourself no favours. I sincerely hope that you don’t profess to be a practicing Christian with such a horribly naive view of the Bible.

The sermon on the mount (in Matthew 5) speaks generally about the poor etc inheriting the earth, and the importance of charity. What I will now say will blow your mind: Jesus literally did not mention homosexuality once, in any version of the Bible. Go ahead and read it if you don’t believe me. The only place in the NT that it is mentioned is in the book of Romans (written by Paul), and even then that depends on which translation you have.

It has been pointed out above me that the 10 commandments are almost wholly irrelevant to our present legal system, so I will not bother exploring that further. Needless to say though you are wrong. I will add however that this fascination you have with “God being the only moral basis for anything” is rather disturbing. Are you saying that the only thing preventing you from killing people is a belief in God and eternal punishment? That sounds like a pretty sociopathic and unevolved belief system.

To quote Jesus, “give to Caeser what is Caeser’s…”

I recommend that you actually read the book you constantly talk about and realise that it is based on love.

Eleanor says:

01:52pm | 18/11/10

Sam, you’re referring to the Book of Leviticus, which if I recall correctly, also forbids the cutting of one’s hair, of wearing blended cloth, eating shellfish and also gives the thumbs up to beating your wife if she steps out of line and keeping slaves.

Funny how nobody ever quotes those bits, either. Unless you only wear 100 per cent cotton and have hair down to your heels, I will not take you seriously if you’re using Leviticus as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage.

Dave-o says:

02:05pm | 18/11/10

Genesis Post Script- And Adam killed all the dinosaurs and other animals that those pesky scientists claimed existed millions of years ago while Satan invented carbon dating and other atomic structures to mislead those into denying the lord.

Pope Benedict 2009

Sam says:

02:09pm | 18/11/10

Poor RPG, you have just answered the question, thanks. Take everything into a high level summation and avoid the details. Brilliant and you call me naive LOL. Just because the word gay or homosexual is not used explicitly then you can ignore the message that is written if you read the book, like the one mentioned that has only on interpretation. Life must be great in your world or you are practicing to be a lawyer?
PS. I said Values as well as legal system and if you can’t see that then you are truly lost.
PPS. The use of God as the only moral basis would be disturbing. Funny how the years of evolution of our body and that of animals clearly indicate the natural order of things.

Dash says:

10:39am | 18/11/10

Shane, I know this is an issue you rattle on about quite a bit. Just to make you feel better, I have three children and a dependant wife. An hour’s commute out of Sydney in the mortgage belt. I get nothing from this or the previous government in terms of welfare, child support, immunisation allowance, baby bonus, tax parts A, B or anything else. Zero, nil, nix, nothing. It would appear I pay too much tax and contribute too much financially to qualify for that.

So I’m neither childless nor single and I’m “middle class”. Am I also allowed to claim that the tax and welfare system screws people like me over too?

And to think Gillard and Rudd told us they were for “Working Families” and were going to deliver “root and Branch” tax reform, cheaper better childcare, more affordable housing, cheaper groceries and fuel etc.

I’m with you 100% on the stupidity of the tax system Shane! But we need a government with balls and I’m afraid we don’t have one.

Markus says:

01:28pm | 18/11/10

Dash check out the Child Care Rebate if any of your children attend childcare.
It is payable for 50% of child care out of pocket expenses up to $7500 per child per year, regardless of income (not means tested). Worth a look.

trixie melodian says:

01:42pm | 18/11/10

@Dash - you also get a bonus for having your kids fully immunised, regardless of income.

Daniel says:

12:40pm | 18/11/10

It takes a village to raise a child, and families come in many varieties.

Are you suggesting it is wrong for a male child to be raised by a single mother?

Tom H says:

02:15pm | 18/11/10

Like the question is it wrong for the woman to betray the marriage and damage the child so she does not have to compromises. Never are right Daniel. Also, don’t twist quotes that have their origin on the foundation that the child has a core family consisting of a MOTHER and a FATHER.

Daniel says:

12:00pm | 19/11/10

Tom, your post doesn’t seem to make sense. Maybe there is some missing words or punctuation. Same sex parent families exist already, just as do separated and divorced parent families. It makes no difference. A supportive loving and stable environment is more important than anything else. Hot damn was be just as closed minded as you are.

iansand says:

12:45pm | 18/11/10

What is your position on heterosexual ceremony conducted by a civil celebrant?  Are the participants married?

fairsfair says:

03:22pm | 18/11/10

By current definition - if they are a man and woman, yes. They are legally commited in the eyes of the LAW. “marriage in the eyes of christ” does not mean anything to me as a hetersosexual individual, but I would still be “married” as it is the commonly used term. However - my use of the term would not cause offence to the people who hold it so dearly. It is just as much a civil ceremony if between a man and a woman. Again - it is just a label so why don’t civilly unified homosexuals just call each other husbands and wives like their heterosexual counterparts do? You are still next of kin, you still have a will and you still have the same LEGAL rights. It is just a word that means a lot to a huge number of people that I would rather not have to listen to whinge about this. If they changed the question on the survey to be “Who would you rather hear bitch and moan for all eternity about marriage” A) the gays or B) the christians - an overwhelming majority would vote A and hence the laws would not change. I am all for equal rights but I am sorry, recognising the union of homosexual people in a civil sense is not oppresive or a Human Rights issue in the slightest.

iansand says:

08:37am | 19/11/10

So marriage isn’t a religious institution?  What is your next argument?

trixie melodian says:

01:28pm | 18/11/10

In that case, don’t read the comments…

StefanR says:

11:47am | 18/11/10

It isn’t just about recognising a relationship, but all of the associated legal rights which so many straight people take for granted (power of attorney, hospital visitation etc as mentioned in the article).

TrueOz says:

12:39pm | 18/11/10

@StefanR

Once again, if government simply got out of the way none of this would be a problem. People would be free to arrange their legal affairs in any manner which they saw fit. In any event, you can already appoint your same sex partner (or anyone else) as your Power of Attorney.

trixie melodian says:

01:35pm | 18/11/10

@Stefan I’ve been married for 8 years and have 2 kids but I’ve never written a will - a situation I assumem many, many couples would find themselves in. I simply assume that my husband will receive my (very meagre) assets and retain custody of our kids.

Imagine being in a long-term relationship where that wasn’t a fair assumption, and even having written a will and having legal documentation in place, your partner and co-parent of your children would NOT be automatically granted custody of your kids and may face a lengthy legal battle to retain custody of kids she had raised for years?

StefanR says:

04:17pm | 18/11/10

@TrueOz forcing gay relationships to jump through more hoops to reach the same conclusion that straight relationships get automaticaly with marriage is discriminatory.

@trixie exactly my point?

trixie melodian says:

04:36pm | 18/11/10

lol Stefan - sorry was supposed to be in response to TrueOz, not you! : )

TrueOz says:

11:09pm | 18/11/10

@trixie melodian

Slightly off-topic – but some friendly advice. I suggest that if you have a partner and kids, with no Will, you should both get up off the couch and see your lawyer quickly. Deceased estate laws vary from state to state in Australia (what a mess), and I can assure you that if you are thinking that your partner might be entitled to you assets just by virtue of marriage that you should think again. Whatever the situation is in your own state, I guarantee it will be an eye opener for you both.

Darren says:

12:04pm | 18/11/10

Ok Hamish, then I want to marry my same sex partner for money. I can’t do this either. Do you get it now? If not then you are very much behind the eight ball.

AdamC says:

12:36pm | 18/11/10

Darren, I think you utterly missed Hamish’s point.

Daniel says:

12:37pm | 18/11/10

You are right. There is no reason why someone should not marry their sister if it was consensual. The only problem is procreation, that would increase the likelihood of harm to a potential person. So if deformed or disabled child was born to such a couple then they should be penalised. Gay marriage is consensual and harms noone.

Trude says:

03:57am | 21/11/10

@Tombowler, you’re saying exactly the same sort of stuff that was said in the 50s about mixed marriages. They were an abomination, apologists for the laws said it wasn’t discrimination, because it applied to both men and women. Even the sibling argument was brought up. Truth is every word said against mixed marriages was poorly concealed racism.

Trevor says:

12:41pm | 18/11/10

What John and his life partner of choice get up to in the privacy of their home is entirely their business.  But why is it important I imitate them?

Dave-o says:

03:03pm | 18/11/10

John Howard also said he’d never ever introduce a GST, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Peter Costello would be Prime Minister. So lets all live our lives according to what John Howard thinks.

Daniel says:

01:00pm | 18/11/10

Don’t feed the troll.
Clive are you alright? You seem like you could do with a hug.

RGG says:

01:10pm | 18/11/10

“I don’t like gay marriage because it’s icky”

This is literally your argument.

Eve says:

10:19pm | 18/11/10

I am a heterosexual woman, and believe you are more than homophobic - it’s quite obvious that it’s hatred of homosexuals that fuels your bigotry.
What you call ‘sexual deviance’ is between consenting adults, whereas children cannot consent to be molested, and rape victims don’t agree to be raped!
And for your information, it is normal for every society, animal & human, to have a proportion of homosexuals.
Another interesting fact - it is often the case that extreme homophobes are often found to be homosexual themselves.

Trevor says:

11:22am | 18/11/10

Wow. Do you genuinely think that the only adults that kids learn from are their two parents?  Not aunts, uncles, grandparents,. teachers, coaches, local shopowners, neighbours?

Steely Dan says:

11:27am | 18/11/10

@ Moxey

“It isnt only religions but nature itself saying it shouldnt happen.”
Do marriages happen in nature?

“If you believe in evolution then you shouldnt get married if your gay.”
Evolution is a description of a natural process - it has nothing to do with a human legal or religious act.  Evolution does not give a crap what we do in our sex lives.  Just like gravity doesn’t care if we fly planes.

“I also think gay people shouldnt have kids, from my own experience.  My Dad left when I was needing him most at 14 years old.”
I have a black friend whose black father walked out on the family when he was a kid.  Yet he doesn’t argue that black people shouldn’t have kids.

“kids would have no chance of how to be a true mand or woman ifthey were brought up by two mums or two dads.”
What’s a ‘true’ man or woman?

notSue says:

11:33am | 18/11/10

I’m sorry to hear you have had little access to good male role models, Moxey. That was your Mum’s responsibility and it sounds like she let you down. Did you have grandparents though? Or school teachers who were ‘true men” (whatever that is, i’m still puzzeled by that one. Maybe you mean “good men”?)

Gay and lesbian couples who have children, either natually or by adopting them, generally have an acute understanding of the need to provide appropriate gender modelling for their kids. For example, If it’s two mums, they have male friends and relatives to turn to for help.

If they can inherit each others property and pass it on to their children, they should be able to call it marriage, IMO, but not your’s obviously, which you are entitled to, of course.

StefanR says:

12:00pm | 18/11/10

“Allowed” to have kids? Seriously? How do you plan on stopping two women and a sperm donor?

Supposing your arguments were correct (spoiler: they aren’t) then they could be equally applied to men who leave their families or children who have a deceased parent. Not advocating these same restrictions on those people, your argument is based on at best ignorance and at worst homophobia.

Shama says:

12:18pm | 18/11/10

“It isnt only religions but nature itself saying it shouldnt happen.”

Nowehere in nature does any animal get “married”. They mate but that’s about it. Plus sexual combinations in nature are varied and can include same sex.

Sorry about your dad but in nature and evolutionary terms most animal papas don’t stick around much - you woulnd’t want any one to think that’s “natural” isn’t it?

Marriage and life long parenting- all these are societal forces.  At this point there is no societal rationale for not legalising a same sex partnership.

Trevor says:

12:45pm | 18/11/10

@Bruce, come back when you’ve read your Bible properly. Including the part where God says he intends to destory Sodom before homosexual activity. And the part where the men of Sodom are quite willing to rape women instead. And Judges chapter 19 and 20 which shows that raping women is just as abhorrent as raping men.  Or Ezekiel 16 which says what the ‘sin of Sodom’ actually was.

I’m tired of Christians who are too lazy to actually read the Scriptures and cite a spurious version that someone else passed down to them. This is serious business.

Daniel says:

01:26pm | 18/11/10

That’s quite a sexist thing to say. The feminist movement has taught us that women are equals. To offer your seat to a woman or open a door for her is a very sexist thing to do.
Two men in a relationship is just that. There is no expectation for one to take a female role. If you stand up for someone it would be because you are a kind person offering someone a seat because they need it more than you, for example if they are sick, disabled, pregnant or old.
I would never offer my seat to someone just because of their gender. You still seemed to be trained to the old ways of being a womans protector, provider and servant. Women wanted to be released from that paradigm and they got it.

Markus says:

01:42pm | 18/11/10

@Daniel, and have been complaining about where all the ‘real men’ have gone ever since!

Farmer says:

04:23pm | 18/11/10

No, Daniel, once again, the minority ruin things for the majority.

Women’s lib, like the homosexual people, are campaigning for the minority. Please do not lump all women in with these precursors to lesbianism. Not all women yearned “to be released from that paradigm ” - the consequences of the women’s liberation arguments are fraught with complex identity crises for both sexes.

Do men really know where they stand and do women long for a small amount of courtesy but are too afraid of admitting it?

Daniel says:

08:16am | 19/11/10

Equality does not ruin things for the majority. I am glad that we live in a progressive society.  Sure you can lump all feminists as “man hating lesbians” but the feminist movement has changed our society for the better. Men and women are no longer socially obliged to be slaves to each other. Women no longer need to snare a man to put a roof over her head, and men no longer need to be the sole provider working long hours missing out on the raising of their children. Equality, choice and freedom are great things.

All people regardless of gender long for a bit of courtesy. I know that society evolving must make it difficult for people to adjust, but nothing bad can come of treating others with the respect and dignity they deserve.

fairsfair says:

12:41pm | 18/11/10

You know so many hetrero parented families could say that. Take a ticket and join the queue.

Steely Dan says:

02:10pm | 18/11/10

@ Eterio

Simple response: who says children need one male parent and one female parent?

BR says:

02:42pm | 18/11/10

Steely Dan: Nature typically….

Steely Dan says:

03:37pm | 18/11/10

@ BR

“Nature typically…. “
Nature doesn’t ‘say’ anything, it’s not prescriptive.  Infanticide and incest is very common in nature.  And aren’t single-parent families the norm in nature anyway?  On second thoughts, I’m being too mammal-centric.  No-parent families are the norm.  Way more species root, gestate, spawn and leave. 
I wouldn’t use wildlife documentaries as parenting tools.

Trevor says:

02:03pm | 18/11/10

This is a very weird post, because you correctly explain what the word ‘MARRY’ actually means, and then complain that while it’s fine to marry two ropes the word is being ‘bastardised’ if it’s used to marry two men.

Eh?  Is the word a special one for the union of a man and a woman, or is it available even to inanimate objects? You tell me.

AliceC says:

01:59pm | 18/11/10

@myne

You’re right, we’d better not tread on the toes of institutions that allow preists to sexually abuse children, then cover it up. Or are willing to go to war against people who don’t have the same belief system…

Peter says:

01:09pm | 18/11/10

how about brothers and sisters???

Ryan says:

02:47pm | 18/11/10

Yes, and how many years did people think the earth was flat, or that black people were second rate because “We have been taught this from kindergarten and by our parents and grandparents it is something that has always been “understood” we know it in our hearts”.

trixie melodian says:

01:58pm | 18/11/10

Probably the same look I got from my daughter when I gave her the hetero sex talk - the idea of sticking anything *anywhere* is pretty icky for a young kid!

Trevor says:

02:01pm | 18/11/10

I think you’ll find these days that most of those male students will think nothing of having sex without marriage.

Trevor says:

02:07pm | 18/11/10

Neither of those words discriminate against same sex couples in the slightest.  So long as a man can have a husband and a woman can have a wife.

Peter says:

03:41pm | 18/11/10

Your nuts Trevor..If a man has a husband, then is it husband and husband or is it still husband and wife ?  and if it is husband do we then need to change all the dictionaries that state the definition as “a woman’s partner in marriage ” ? Don’t you see it just won’t work no matter how hard you wish it to?

AliceC says:

01:53pm | 18/11/10

@MelD

‘leave us something for crying out loud’

What are they taking??!! Nothing is being taken away from you!

Steely Dan says:

02:11pm | 18/11/10

@ MelD

“why do you need it labeled ‘marriage’? leave us something for crying out loud “

‘Leave’ you something?  What’s being taken away from you?

Jim says:

01:58pm | 18/11/10

Well, ‘offensively stupid’ to me is someone coming out in pompous tones and making a blanket statement like ‘They say that they are opposed to gay marriage because homosexuality is “against the order of nature” or an “abomination”. ‘

You’d find some of course, but overall very few people who think that way.
I also find it weird that gay people need to feel like they are hated?
The biggest insult I have ever given a gay person - and it was all inadvertently - was when I showed complete disinterest in his new found ‘outness’. He was a bloke I went to school with, everyone at school thought he was gay; it never bothered anyone. Some years after school he was at a pub in town, I said g’day and he announced he was gay. I shrugged my shoulders and said ‘so what?’
The look on his face was as if his dog had just been run over…what did he expect? Me to dance around and throw rose petals, cheering on his courage to come out? No, his exact words were “you could have at least got angry”

ThursdayPunch says:

02:30pm | 18/11/10

Ah, another one who knows the majority. I am as always humbled to be in the presence of those who know the majority’s view. Thanks for letting me know I may be in the minority. Terrific stuff.

Sandy says:

09:34am | 22/11/10

“make me embarrassed to be an Australian”  Likewise.  But you use your title, as Dr Phelps does, to promote your opinions.  Your counter arguments are equaly frail.

Matt F says:

03:39pm | 18/11/10

1. every religion has their own spin on marriage. yes all have it as being between a man and a woman but all have subtle differences. evidence of ancient cultures, existing long before christianity for example existed, show that marriage was initially not about love/soul mates/ starting a family etc as we see it but as a means of trade and property. besides this debate is about the LEGAL definition of marriage. churches, mosques, etc will always be able to define it however they want. although given the did not create the institution of marriage, rather adopted and adapted it to follow their own belief and value systems, exactly what right do they have on the issue? all the pro-gay marriage people are saying is lets adapt it again to suit the views of the majority of present society (the legal definiton of course, not the religious one.)

2. the 50% divorce rate doesn’t do this already? also what is the institution? the christian institution? earlier civilisations? it wasn’t too long ago interracial marriages were illegal remember. changes have occured before

3.what has marriage got to do with children? plenty of kids these days are born out of wedlock and plenty of couples who get married never have kids. also there’s no conclusive evidence to suggest that children raised by gay parents are disadvantaged at all.

4. all those examples are irrelevant because children, animals and inanimate objects can’t give consent to, or hasn’t developed/matured enough mentally to understand the consequences of, marriage. hence why adults having consensual sex with children is illegal.

5. how? why? elaborate please. treating people equally generally means treating them the same

MarK says:

04:50pm | 18/11/10

You didn’t read all my post Matt but I will answer anyway - do please note I am playing devil advocate here. Unlike Kerryn I recognise the validity of the other side and do not let any bias get in the road. Those pesky heterosexuals and their wild ideas are not just a nuisance you know.

1.You sort of prove the point but then make this statement “this debate is about the LEGAL definition of marriage” which I don’t think it is. This is a debate about wanting to be able to have something you don’t have and stamping your foot till you get in Kerryns case.

If it was just about legalities lets set up a new social construct and call it merriage. Lerts give it exactly the same legal rights as marriage. It just so happens merriage can only be between same sex couples.

All it is is one letter different in a name, a descriptor by your way of thinking.

Do you think Kerryn would be happy?

2. Yes thing change. So? Marriage is obviously between a man and a woman. It is the norm. And the 50% divorce rate is a good point. Do we REALLY want to do ANYTHING that will weaken what is fast becoming an excuse for a pissup and a way to give some sheila you rooted for a while a house?

3. Hmmm interesting. There are studies that say that kids are better off with a variety of teachers and 2 parents male and female. I am not arguing the validity but surely being exposed to male and females in the home environment is healthy and not restrictive? Men are from Mars woman Venus remember. Oh and partnering up has a lot to do with kids. Carrying on the family name. Strengthening ties in communities basic continuation of the race. 

Besides the making the kid part is fun.

4. No they are not invalid. You talk about different cultures earlier. Well the Greeks certainly had it as normal for a man to have a “special” relationship with boys. They were paired up.

And consent? What does that have to do with it? Were you not just talking about a legal right and definition. What if a court actually said well marriage means that you want to “blah blah” with something else and it looks as though that sheep is happy with farmer Bob so they can get married. As soon as you stretch one boundary for the sake of equality it is hard to keep the boundary in check.

Anyway can you say that dog would not want to be with just you? Remain faithful? Who says that blow up doll is not perfectly happy with the one partner.

5. It is complex but look at it from the point of view of a heterosexual couple that deeply believe that marriage is between a man and a woman for any number of reasons. They are not scarce either this imaginary couple.

Now they are told the institution they believe in is not what they thought. That is not equality. That is lessening for them as wrong as that may be. They feel as diminished as Kerryn does now.

There are more philosophical bullshit points for this one but leave it at that.

Hope that helps.

And remember - I am for same sex marriage. I am just against Kerryns methodolgy

Jim says:

05:20pm | 18/11/10

A wager then, MattF, on point number one.

Lets assume that the Greens have Joolya over a barrel (well, really no assumption there), and some time in this dreadful term gay marriage is legalised. Let’s just assume it happens.

The wager; how long will it be before a gay couple takes a Church to court for refusing to perform a (now) legal ceremony? I give it no more than 3 months.

The whole thing is a farce and a distraction; bring in a bill that gives same sex couples the same rights as married couples with respect to wills, carers leave, family incomes etc. It’ll be passed unanimously and we can get on with the real issues.

Matt F says:

03:02pm | 19/11/10

MarK, i do apologise, i didn’t see the second part of your post before i had commented on the first part, the first part was long enough let alone a longer second part! although still quite an interesting read. i guess i was more trying to play devil’s advocate to your devil’s advocate. if that makes any sense?

1. It is about the legal definition of marriage as that is the definition that governs marriage in this country. if the catholic church, for example, suddenly decided that their definition of marriage included adults marrying children (not an intended priest/altar boy pun, just a random example) this new form would still not be allowed to be, or at least recognised to be, considered marriage in Australia until we changed the existing Act. religions would still be free to define marriage however they wish, as is their right as private institutions.

2. yes it is currently between a man and a woman, although as you and others have pointed out, not in some countries anymore. my point was more that throughout history we have changed elements of marriage (age limits, personal choice, mixed race couples etc etc.) so why not change it again? as i said in point 1 in my earlier post, marriage used to be about property and trade and that changed over time. i.e. we’ve changed the definition before so why not again? i also fail to see how two men or two women weakens the institution at all. if anything allowing more people the right to get married would strenghten it?

3. my point wasn’t so much that gay couples are better then straight parents or vice versa, more that chaving children and getting married are in no way related. as i said before you can have kids out of marriage or get married and not have kids. hence what do children/parenting have to do with marriage?

of course partnering up has a lot to do with kids (you don’t have to convince me about the fun part about it!) but sex and marriage are two completely different things. gay couples can adopt children, have IVF/surrogacies etc without getting married so clearly marriage and children aren’t at all correlated.

4. i was indeed talking about legal rights and definitions. consent is a vital part of many laws. you can’t get married without consent. you cannot force somebody to get married. therefore consent has a large part to do with marriage. i am not allowed to put a gun to your head and force you to marry somebody.

it takes two parties to commit to marriage, dogs and inanimate objects can’t say “i do” or sign the marriage license, and children have no legal right to do so as we as a society have declared they are not mature enough to make such important decisions and are easily influenced by the power of adults. hence why an adult can have consenual sex with a 10 year old and still be charged with rape. in my view comparing consenting adults getting married to adults marrying things which can’t give consent is comparing apples with oranges.  i think polygamy would have been a better, more relevant, example for you to have used for this point. then again that’s just my opinion.

5. imagine being a gay couple who love each other, already have children etc. and wish to get married to show the extent of their love. imagine being told they can’t but if you married someone of the opposite sex, regardless of whether you were in love or not, you could. i would also encourage the hypothetical couple to think about it more carefully. legalising gay marriage does nothing to lessen the institution at all. they are not removing any rights given to heterosexual couples, rather extending the same rights to homosexual couples. also what about for those (also numerous) who are disheartened with marriage in its current form? perhaps to them allowing gay marriage would enhance their views of marriage?

i guess my whole point is that; marriage is not so much a religious institution but a societal one which has been adopted and adapted by various relgions, and cultures, throughout history to suit how they believed it should occur. as such, if a society as a majority, wishes to change the institution again to suit it’s own views, should they not be allowed to? (i would actually prefer a referendum to gauge the publics full view on the issue rather then a parliament vote but not sure if that’s possible)

jim -  i don’t know. but given the church would be a private institution and there would another legal way for them to get married not involving a church (e.g. a civil ceremony which are more and more common these days) i have severe doubts they would succeed, nor even try. the point of the debate is to change the lgal definiton of marriage, religions would still be free to not marry same-sex couples if they wished.

Peter says:

04:21pm | 18/11/10

Best post I have read all day…

Sandy says:

01:11pm | 19/11/10

Just their way of ramming through what they want MarK.  It’s politiking. Full of misinformation, cherry picking, condescention and the Bush Ultimatum: “if you’re not with me you’re against me “. 

Hasn’t worked for so many agendas and it won’t work here. And the consequences of Phelps actions will be carried by those she’s declared to help.

StefanR says:

04:26pm | 18/11/10

Marriage is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for procreation. I think you are confusing ‘marriage’ with ‘heterosexual sex’.

Eve says:

03:59pm | 18/11/10

Well,  there’s Norway, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina & Mexico City!

Marriage may have a religious meaning for you, but it does not for everyone. It is a legal contract first & foremost, plus the religious aspect if so desired by the participants.

Marriage pre-dates Christianity, so please don’t use it as shield for your discriminatory attitude.

Sandy says:

12:37pm | 19/11/10

“Marriage pre-dates Christianity,”  And where exactly did Ethan mention Christianty?

It’s no more a legal contract in Australian than any of the other social interactions he have in Australia that are ruled by legislation and common law.  See my post above.

Jeremy says:

07:09am | 19/11/10

The equality side has a very clear and obvious “solution” - full equality. Do not specify genders in the Marriage Act.

Problem solved.

Ben C says:

08:56am | 19/11/10

Jeremy, I find that you’re looking at things a bit too simply. It’s not as easy as dropping genders from the wording of the Act. That’s only the first step to solving the problem.

I don’t know all the aspects of the Marriage Act, I don’t know what restrictions there are in terms of dividing assets and custody of children. If there are restrictions, how are the restrictions applied? Which spouse gets what? Unless we have a test case, there is only going to be uncertainty.

Sandy says:

12:06pm | 19/11/10

“Could you please tell me HOW it is going to affect your life directly if a same sex couple gets married? ”  This question has come up a few times on the Punch.  It probably won’t affect their lives. But you’re asking them to question their religions and religions rely on faith. And losing faith, opens fears. And that affects everything about their lives.

StefanR says:

05:42pm | 18/11/10

Except there aren’t any notions of coercion that bring consent into question with a same sex relationship.

Reuben T says:

07:27pm | 18/11/10

Perhaps their union IS good, right and nice and it’s yours that’s not so peachy?  Someone’s sexuality is not indicative of the quality of their character or their suitability to be a role model or care giver.

Eve says:

09:46pm | 18/11/10

Yes kids are impressionable - and it would be great if they became a lot more accepting of people different to them!

Your kids, if you have any, will turn out to be as narrow-minded, bigoted and discriminatory as you!

As a (heterosexual) parent I would not allow my children to go to your home lest they pick up your intolerant attitudes.

Sandy says:

11:43am | 19/11/10

Sorry mattkas.  It’s already affecting you. Too many people are being crushed or angered by the contradictory principles at the start and end of marriage as embodied in our law.  It’s all about love at the union but then love is excluded from matters of separation.  It needs to be fixed. It’s affecting too many lives and is affecting Australia.

Sandy says:

11:32am | 19/11/10

“thank you for the best laugh I’ve had in ages”  Condescension will help you will it?  Or just: satisfy you? So what do they do about the fact that their religions are against homosexuality?

Realistic says:

12:04pm | 19/11/10

...and here we go with religion again! *sigh* Ok, let me explain…

Religions are entitled to their own doctrines and beliefs. Individuals are entitled to subscribe to these doctrines and beliefs. Doctrines can cover a broad range of things, including processes such as birth, death and marriage. They are entitled to have ceremonies and traditions.

Equally, individuals have the right to NOT practise any religious traditions. Every state department has a marriage registry where a couple may sign in the witness of a registered celebrant. This is a legally binding contract and not at all reliant on any form of religion whatsoever.

If the Catholic church (for example) won’t acknowledge gay marriage as a valid Catholic-recognised marriage then they do not need to. When the day comes that gay people can marry (and it will come, let us not kid ourselves), a gay couple in question need not bother approaching the Catholic church to marry them. Instead they will be able to legally marry via the registry and hold their own wedding. No religion is necessary.

Sandy says:

12:27pm | 19/11/10

“This is a legally binding contract “.  My understanding is that it’s no such thing. The vows are unenforecable.  All other rights and obligations under such an agreement are defined by the legislature and common law. Marriage under our law is no more a ‘contract’ than the ‘contract’ between my sibling and I when I drop my child off at their place for half a day.  The act of signing the marriage certificate is merely a form for identifying the two parties.  ALL the terms and conditions are dictated by law. The act of me dropping my child begins the ‘contract’.  All the terms and conditions of my siblings conduct around my child is dictated by the law.

The reason I raise religion is becase the likes of Phelps are trying to sell this as: rights and fairness.  It’s not.  Unless religions accept homosexuality then the law will change purely on the basis of MIGHT IS RIGHT.  The 60% will trump the 40%.  Good luck with that.

Especially if you’re going to be condescening about it.  Because there are plenty of other issues at stake like: the more couples putting their hands up for adopting then the less likely a hetersexual couple’s application will succeed.

Realistic says:

03:30pm | 19/11/10

Ok fine, maybe contract is the wrong word, but there are inherent legal implications once the parties sign the dotted line. As far as religion is concerned, no law can make them change their policy on gay marriage of course. Nor should it. And the church should stay out of civil policy - it’s not their place. It’s up to people to follow religion should they choose.

What does interest me however is your last comment regarding the adoption of children through agencies. I would think that the same standards would be applied regardless of the sexuaility of the relationship. If a heterosexual couple were knocked back on a particular occasion because a gay couple were deemed more suitable according to the standard criteria, what is wrong with that?

Objection to homosexuality as a legitimate state of being, and comdemnation of gay marriage and gay parenting is simply blind prejudice. I’m not being condescending when I say that all of the arguments that I have heard which are against gay marriage/parenting are frivilous and fear-mongering. Comparable arguments such as “think of the children” were used with relish by the anti-interracial marriage movement.

I hope that WHEN gay marriage becomes enshrined in our laws, the objectionists may find relief from their prejudices copping a hit to the kidneys.

Sandy says:

02:47pm | 21/11/10

“what is wrong with that?” Simple really. The hetero couple didn’t get what they wanted.  We’re a dog eat dog culture in Oz. Competition.  It’s in our legislation. If the hetero couple can take out some of their opposition, they’ll do everything possible to do so.  Within the law. Forget all the fairness and equality ideology.  Welcome to the real world of fighting over limited resources. What’s in it for me.

Sandy says:

11:37am | 19/11/10

“desperately trying to throw your two bobs worth in”  Condescension will help you will it?  Or just: satisfy you? So what do they do about the fact that their religions are against homosexuality?

Catherine says:

03:09pm | 19/11/10

Sandy, there are plenty of religions against alot of things, but the world keeps going.

There are foods people shouldn’t eat because of their religion, but no one throws their hands up in the air and cries that it’s against *their* religion… I find we’re MORE accommodating, and TOLERANT.
And those people who wear burqas or head coverings are tolerated and even accepted, even though other religious cultures don’t wear them.
And what about the hypocrisy of some religions? The abuse and cover ups; it’s all coming out now.

I don’t hurt anyone by loving my partner. We go about our lives like anyone else, and actually have strong morals and values that we maintain with our kids. We in fact send one of our kids to a christian youth group in order to further press the importance of good morals and values (and personal respect!) - and have also pointed out that it is her own choice on what she believes in. She is a teenager who would rather sponsor a child in Africa and get money to continue sponsoring, than get christmas presents. We also re-use and recycle, and avoid being the consumers of today’s society. We garden, and eat our own produce, and volunteer with various organisations. We monitor television, music and movies - as most of the stuff today is full of sex and smut, and devalues respect of others and ourselves, patience, love, generosity, sensitivity, and acceptance and I don’t want my kids growing up not caring about their world.

If religion wants to save the world, then they should be fighting against the smut in the media - that’s worse than the homosexuality issue!!

The point I was making is that there IS an issue, and it is clear from reading these comments. So many people on here are saying that the government are using this as a distraction from other issues.

Sandy says:

02:30pm | 21/11/10

People still remain faithful to their religions but not to their reigious leaders.  One of the features of monotheism is that individuals have a direct relationship with their god. It’s a development that allowed cumulative knowledge to trump the vagaries of leaders.

I’m guessing there’s a cumulative effect in the opposition against homosexuality. Religions are against it.  It’s readily identifyable. Envy and meritocracy.

One of the other points I’d like you to consider is that G & L marriages might actually be more successful than hetero marriages.  G&L partnerhsips don’t have to deal with conflicts arising from the genders different brain architecture and body chemistry.  The difficulties arising from these differences are probably part of the reason that the institution of marriage evolved in the first place.  I.e. to help focus partners on the long term shared goals to help partnership get through the short term ups and downs.

Think Alain de Botton’s Status Anxiety.  We’re supposed to be a meritocracy right? So if I’m a failure, comparatively, then it must be my fault. We’re not a meritocracy and never will be. But that’s the philosophy that drives the likes of Phelps to bang on about Rights, Equality and Fairness. But what meritocracy does do is drive people to level the playing field. And if the hetero community see that you’ve got it easier than they do, they’ll level the playing field. And their religions are telling them they’re right.

As for the quality of debate and our governance. Just look at what our family law has morphed into. The 1975 change to ‘no fault divorce’ took family law to exactly where it shouldn’t be. It’s not only easy to get out your comitment, but there’s a cash incentive to do so. Why would anyone want to stay married when things get a bit rocky. Take the money and run. 

But that’s democracy for you. Just because the majority of the group wants something doesn’t make it the right thing to do.  And they killed Socrates for saying so. I guess they were scared of the truth. Pretty conceited of them wasn’t it.

Our family law is hopelessly compromised.  And while Phelps mocks me with her pop culture analogy, she won’t face the truth. That there are much easier ways to get a much better outcome for the G&L community. She’s really more about winding up some followers to go into battle to stick it to the other side.  Irrespective of the colateral damage she causes to her own.

Like you say, she’s using a distraction (equality politics) to avoid the real issues.  I mean really, what does she want G&L marriage to mean?  If it’s about equality then: do you really want it? If it’s about love then you’d best avoid Australian family law at all costs because it’s tearing our society apart. 

Why not take this as an opportunity to create a better model of marriage under our law?  Something that heteromarriage law can merge with later. Just an idea.

Can I have my PhD now?

Jade says:

09:49am | 19/11/10

Because they are not. To be able to make medical decisions on behalf of your partner, as a married couple is entitled to do, you and any gay couple need to sign Power of Attorney forms for each other. Your will, and the will of a gay couple can be overrode by spiteful family members, unlike that of a married couple. It is not fair that rights are afforded to one sector of society that are continually denied to another sector based on bigotry and intolerance.

There are a whole host of other rights which marriage affords people that are denied to gay and de-facto couples. Never mind that in some states gay relationships aren’t even recognised at all.

Eleanor says:

09:15am | 19/11/10

I don’t want children. I’m straight. Does this mean I’m not allowed to get married and enjoy the legal protection and recognition of my relationship?

Sandy says:

11:19am | 19/11/10

Just make sure you make it very clear that you don’t want children before they commit.  And if you change your mind?  How’s that fair on your partner?

Years in and my ex finally decided she didn’t children.  And the law gave ME the big middle finger by giving her more than half.  Fair? Sorry lefties.  Does not compute.

Eleanor says:

11:29am | 19/11/10

That sucks for you, Sandy. But my point was using procreation as a defence for marriage is stupid, as it’s not only homosexuals who don’t have babies. It’s also pretty rude to make somebody else’s private life and their fertility your business.

Sandy says:

11:56am | 19/11/10

I agree. My point is that the whole issue of marriage in Australian law is a mess of incoherent compromise. It’s half baked. Unlike what Phelps is trying to lead readers to believe.  But that’s the logic of agenda driven spokepersons in Australia’ for you. Half baked.

mattkas says:

08:39pm | 19/11/10

Sandy,
I’m very supportive of your insightful comments. I hope that other commentators can broaden their views on this topic by reading your ideas. Maybe we could now move on to the really important issues.

Hypocrisy- Just Say No says:

10:26am | 19/11/10

Mr Savage has quite the turn of phrase there but fails to understand that his vitriolic and personal response suggests that he is himself a tad bigoted.

Why is it acceptable for him to make generalizations, hateful ones, on the basis of religion? Why is this distinguished from the basis of sexuality?

Herein lies the issue with the gay lobby. The attack the religious as zealot f$%head no-hopers. This is often the case. What they fail to understand is that by doing so they attack other christians and religious people who previously supported or were indifferent to gay marriage.

“Can’t escape from the golden rule;
If you hate something,
Don’t you do it to”
- Not For You- Pearl Jam

So in response:

Who the f$%# are you to tell me that my beliefs are evil or f$%ing kill.

You know what kills? AIDS. Thats what kills.

I have never met you or shown anything but respect for the gay community and you got the brass ones to tell me that i am a “dehumanizing bigot”

Are you right mate? I quite frankly don’t give two f$@ing sh#rs what you do with your genitals but the second you start personally attacking me because you have a victim complex? Then we got a problem.

I tell you this now: You have created a tireless opponent to gay marriage. Out of spite. Wrong? Well f## you.

This is representative of the holier than thou bulls#$% pedalled by the gay community: Everyone is bigoted, redneck and intolerant except them.

The constant derision showed to some of the more naive religious posters on here shows a distinct lack of tolerance and I’m f%^$ing sick of it. Choosing to root another male does not give you some out-law status whereby you are immune to societies rules.

Sandy says:

11:15am | 19/11/10

Gay Marriage gets an O in too many boxes for the more tolerant religious to accept it.

Atheist marriage, Interfaith marriage and Divorce and remarriage? All still get an X in the M+W box.

The idea behind being against athiest and interfaith marriage and remarriage is to do with: what happens then when we go to heaven.  Will my athiest, rival-faith, or multiple partners be there in heaven with me for eternity. It’s a different issue.  If the Church allowed multiple wives/husbands then remarriage wouldn’t get any opposition.

Gay marriage is a different theological issue.

“there’s no “Christian” movement to deny marriage rights to ”  Oh yes there is.  And in other faiths too. It’s called the extreme right.  Is that where you want to push the middle?  There’s no where else to go so that’s where they go when you push them.  Is that what you want?  That’s what you’ll get.  The rise of the right. And they’ll vote for the likes of Bush and Palin.

“you are partly responsible for the bullying and physical violence” And have you taken YOUR bullying up with the source, with the religious leaders, or you just resorting to bullied bullying.

Wok says:

05:01pm | 19/11/10

Dan Savage is a conservative/activist, pro-war, anti-islam foul mouthed aggressive boofhead who doesn’t know what he stands for except homsexuality.  Unless you agree 100% with him he hates you.  To describe him as a wonderful writer is laughable, more a spinner of hatred.  His response is rubbish

concerned says:

02:09pm | 19/11/10

Your arguments display all the traits of the myopic rabid advocate: found in the christian camp as well as the homosexual lobby:

Bigots will hide BEHIND religion. They were bigoted to begin with and use religion as the vehicle for the persecution. People who are religious do not have any prima facie beef with homosexuality.

Attempts to characterize it so are at best disingenuous and at worst a potentially worse form of bigotry. The sort of ‘religion is evil’ bigotry employed by Stalin during the murder of 20 odd million…

Your quite happy to make sweeping generalizations about the religious man as a: right-wing, derogatory, homophobic, arsehole

By your logic all gay men must be: skinny, camp, loud, effeminate and acutely fashionable.

I, however, refuse to play your game of stereotyping. Ask yourself the following: Is it religion responsible for the deaths of young gays? or is it the people who pushed them to it?

You talk with the self-righteousness of those who are blessed with idealism but too lazy to develop any original thoughts on the subject matter. Your vile, hate-filled, discriminatory crap has no place in this society and you do the gay-marriage movement a disservice through your association. I’m sure many of the cooler heads in the movement would be as disgusted as myself to hear this sort of wanton hypocrisy by it’s proponents inciting hatred to a specific religious group.

(Before you respond by saying the I am religious and ipso facto devoid of original thought: I’m not religious, I just don’t believe in persecuting people for their religious beliefs..Call me old fashioned..)

Sandy says:

04:21pm | 19/11/10

“offensive hate and defensive hate” Where do people come up with this stuff from.  Is this how it works: the religions went on the offensive against homosexuality who defensively go against the followers who defensively fight back against homosexuality.  Sounds like an unbreakable circuit of hate to me. I suggest ‘marriage’ re-branding but Phelps chooses to mock that notion.  Seems she wants to win on the principle of fairness. And the prize, is that the G&L community will get torn apart by our mutated law around ‘marriage’ as badly as the straight community. Yay for that. 

Your attacking religious followers for ... well ... being followers. So I guess this’ll just be a fight to the death of religion. Good luck with that.

Sir, you have doubtedmy honour.  I challenge you to a duel.  To the death. ... 

Stupid meglomaniacs everywhere. Follow them and you just get owned.

Beware false prophets

@ concerned

Sounds like you’re saying that religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc) don’t oppose homosexuality. Not accoring to what I’ve read.  Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Sandy says:

01:22pm | 24/11/10

My guess is that the right leaning G&L just get on with their lives.  But I’m sure they’re not averse to some legislative amendments that make their lives easier. Shame the chestbeating idealogically compromised whingers on the left stuffed it up for them.  Did the same for the environment too.

Mary says:

10:52pm | 14/03/11

Rubbish, I nothing against two people loving each other but two men having gay sex is just wrong. Therefore its wrong to marry cuz you gonna have sex arent you? You have more risk of disease, health problems etc. More risk of bowel cancer, prostrate cancer, HIV and related diseases. You cant donate blood, you cant donate organs, the child will grow up confused. not good
something to think about; I was taught in history that advanced civilizations in the past, such as greek and roman, disintergrated due to the embracing of homosexuality; this is not made up, this is historic fact. A country is as strong as it’s family units - Religion doeshave something to do with it, yes God made the law, the natural law.  We are sick of this ridiculous push for gay marriage. It degrades the meaning of marriage