Gay Marriage Debate 2

Aletha St. John wrote
at 4:23pm on December 11th, 2007
This is not a morality issue...it is a civil rights issue. Give them EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW and let the philosophers decide whether society is fucked.

Andrew John Douglas wrote
at 5:16pm on December 11th, 2007
This is an interesting topic. For something to be made legal in a democratic society it has to reflect the norms of society. Let's look at something that isn't deemed acceptable:

Once upon a time owning pornography was illegal, now it's everywhere. Owning child pornography is not though. But maybe one day it'll be seen as "up to the rights of the individual". If you think about it, is there anything wrong with OWNING child pornography? Not really, directing it yes, but owning it, nothing immediately wrong. But we as a society believe there is a follow on effect to people owning child pornography, that somehow by partaking in this activity it will effect society negatively in other ways such as paedophilia. It's the exact same reason pornography used to be illegal decades ago, that it might follow on to dangerous behaviour such as rape. But social norms changed, lots of people got into porno films and now it was ok.

Now lets look at a more positive example, social welfare.....

When you goto a shopping centre chances are you wont see a homeless person with a tin begging for change. It's not that we care as a society about homeless people it's that homeless people used to be around begging for change and we went to the government and said "Take this problem away". So the government taxed us and now the problem is gone. The government responded to what the majority of people wanted.

The truth about this issue is social norms have to change. The majority currently believes that two men or two women "getting married" is fucked up.
The number of lesbian and gay people in Australia has to grow. Until lots of people have gay/lesbian/transsexual friends who they like and understand or until there is a gay/lesbian VOTE to win over, nothing's going to happen.

That being said I will share my personal opinion, even if it's not being asked for, and that is that two men getting married is fucked up. (I can't speak for women as I'm not one). I'm glad the government doesn't allow gay marriages because it is one step closer to a society that accepts and tolerates gay parenthood. That being said I would prefer my girl playing with another girl who had 2 dads versus a girl who had an alcoholic mum and dad or a drug using mum and dad. But what I'm saying is, why bring more negativity into the world? Being gay is untrustworthy just like alcohol and drugs is untrustworthy. Before you bring out the big "homophobe" hammer, let me say that growing up in high school half my group was gay, my best friend for all of high school infact was gay. I still get along with these guys great. Got no problem with them.

The real issue is that being gay is a denial of one's true essence. If you're a masculine energy, you're a masculine energy - you don't want another masculine energy because you know yourself, you don't need anything that masculinity brings. Many of the men I know who are gay and I have met many, were taught or rewarded for behaviour that is more characteristic of female behaviour or a powerful experience occurred in their life that in that moment shook their core and made them need the love of a man.

Enough with the lies and the "trendy vibe of tolerance". Gay people are lost like poor people are lost, like fat people are lost, like drug addicts are lost, like I'm lost about trying to quit eating meat even though I know it's wrong. It's all lost , nothing's much worse than anything else. But why encourage it?

Lindsay Bignell wrote
at 6:11pm on December 11th, 2007
Andrew, I would like to address several of your points.

Firstly pornography – the thing about freedom is speech is that you can't say 'freedom of certain, pre-approved free speech. Because then it is not free, by definition. Australia has very high levels of pornographic restrictions, amongst the highest in the “free” world, technically everything we see has to be approved by the censor, the OFLC. Child pornography is a sensitive issue, but the creation of the material in the first place is a crime. So just the way receiving stolen goods is becoming a party to the theft, I can see a legitimate role for 'receiving child exploitation materials' being an offence. BUT the problem with speech is we should not restrict it when it is used to educate and refute these practices.

“dangerous behaviour such as rape” It was seen that the more you made material taboo and swept under the carpet, the more the associated crime became prevalent and more extreme – the crime was not talked about and thus flourished and actively hidden by authorities (also see religious institutions with a duty of care for young children).

Social norms have changed, that is why we have a debate going on as we speak. I would hope that a democracy is not so much about numbers of votes (tyranny of the majority) but an ability to govern for all – if doing something positive for a minority has no effect on the majority, then why disallow it. People should be ruled by the least disliked figure and not the most liked, hence preferential voting being a good thing and allowing more choice.

Now as for “two men getting married is fucked up”, surely you need to provide substantive evidence as to why society should adopt this view through law. You say you cannot speak for women because you are not one. Should that not also apply for gay people? You should not speak for them because you are not one (I assume). Gay parenthood is, contrary to your opinion, not a reliable indicator of good or bad parenting. Now if half your friends in school were gay, that is a significantly high proportion. I assume they were not untrustworthy if they were your friends. Do your friends seem like they would be bad parents? I doubt it. Why should gay people in general be less trustworthy than your gay friends.

"The real issue is that being gay is a denial of one's true essence."

If they are gay, isn't that their essence, regardless of how they developed it?

Also, we do not disallow fat people from marrying each other, or poor people. If they are lost (and this is verging on the point of hilarity) then it is their own and nobody else's responsibility to find themselves.

I also tend to think tolerance is a good thing. Without tolerance we have violence. I don't like violence. 'nuff said.

Why encourage it? Why discourage it? Let's just have people make up their own minds and, like Aletha said, let philosophers sort out the rest. I don't want people to tell me how to live, and make it mandatory, so I won't do the same for others unless it impinges upon other people, which homosexuality doesn't. Its private.

Andrew John Douglas wrote
at 7:01pm on December 11th, 2007
The first part of my response was just on "what is". The 2nd part was my opinion.

I'm a man, I'm wired as a man, I lived my childhood as a boy and played with other boys. I lived through the same experiences every other man has lived through in a western country. I can talk about men. I can talk about men of any lifestyle.

The thing about an "intellectual" debate is that it's just - "intellectual". Nothing really is going on because no one is in their heart and dedicated to truth. I gave those types of debates up years ago.

Men are meant to be with women and women are meant to be with men. Get out of your head, goto your heart - ask yourself if it's true. That being said, there's many things we're "meant" to do. we're not meant to eat meat (our intensines are obviously not designed for it), we're not meant to eat dairy (we are the only species that drinks milk as adults). We're not meant to be poor (we have a GDP of 670 Billion, if you're poor something's up!).

And you know what, we're not meant to be fat either but my wife is fat, really fat and I love her immensely. She's awesome, she's my soul. I love her dearly and she loves me but neither of us believe in denying the truth. So what I'm saying is, gay people are fine just like meat eaters are fine just like poor people are fine just like fat people are fine.

I intend to love gay people just like I love anybody and I hope people will love me for the areas in my life that need healing.

haha and don't say "I think this is one such area" :)

Lindsay Bignell wrote
at 8:00pm on December 11th, 2007
Firstly I never imply people need to heal specific area. :) In fact I generally don't like the term "heal" at all. It's not a "doing" word, and if people need to change things, then people need to "do".

Truth and fact are two completely different words, which are again completely different words when used in a religious context as well. I just find intellectual debates stimulating, as long as you don't expect to "win" against idealists, then they are just depressing.

While I could open up intellectual avenues regarding dairy/meat eating, and poverty (GDP does not equal wealth) I will gag my internal devil's advocate.

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you because of malice, I simply have a different viewpoint and would like to help you see the issue as I do, without forcing you to adopt my view.

To use an overused phrase, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Aletha St. John (Sunshine Coast) wrote
at 9:33pm on December 11th, 2007
Oh my! Well, this has certainly stimulated what I hoped it would...discussion! I think the gay marriage/civil union debate needs airing, and this is why it's on my profile.

Andrew, I too have a recently acquired aversion to intellectual debate; my dear friend Lindsay is a welcome mouthpiece as he's a lot more articulate than me! To be completely honest with you (and my name means Truth!), I look inside my heart, and what rings most true from its depths is that, as my friend Pinghan, a strong, beautiful, right-wing, Christian man said kickstarting this discussion, "I wholeheartedly support civil unions...If two free-thinking adults wish to conduct a co-dependent relationship, they should be allowed every right under law." My ethics and politics will always lean towards the most marginalised and vulnerable members of society. "Whether in the chambers of the judiciary, on the floors of the legislatures, at the ballot boxes of the electorate, or through the ranks of the military, the state demands that LesBiGays fulfill their civic responsibilities, but it denies their civil rights." (Isn't that the best quote, Linds! Yay for 2 years of gender studies :) )

David's reply: "My main message is in my question (which you didn't really get around to discussing): You are supporting a lifestyle which is offensive to God according to the Bible. I am strongly against same sex married, simply because God is. Don't you agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality?"

There are passages in the Bible which condemn homosexuality, yes. There are also passages which condemn fornication, yet sex outside of a legal marriage is not against the law. This is because of the separation of church and state, the State concedes some of its power to allow expression of religion and the Church concedes some of its power to allow freedom of religion. History shows how well this arrangement works, compared with countries that are governed by religious laws or countries that prohibit religion. I respect your moral beliefs, but I challenge your apparent desire to merge church and state. Do you know what civil rights gay couples are even being denied? Is this what you are challenging, Dave? or are you simply interested in my personal opinion on the matter? Because I'm not debating opinions here, I'm debating the legal issue.

I know Christians who vehemently oppose the lifestyle but recognise the validity of civil unions. I don't care if you don't agree with homosexuality, I don't care if your God doesn't...it's not my problem. But if you really want to see the fabric of society being destroyed, let the law play God. It's worked FOR Christians in the past but it's sure as fuck worked against them as well, and I'm not interested in playing politics with people's faith or lack thereof.

Oopsies, you got me a widdle bit fired up :) There's my messianic complex rearing its ugly head again!

Lindsay Bignell wrote
at 9:52pm on December 11th, 2007
2 years of gender studies and yet you think I make a better mouthpiece! :P

There is a nice bit in the bible about men's law relating to men and god's law relating to god. I like that demarcation zone. I.e. get god out of our legislation. It doesn't work for government and it doesn't work for religion (laws are too messy for religions to come out unscathed), thats why we have a separation of church and state and why it is good. (admittedly I would like god out of everything, but hey, one step at a time...)

Look, for example, at religious law applied by Islam for a modern example. A rape victim recently got 200 lashes and gaol time for being a victim and encouraging people to rape her by being outside without a family escort.