Read DREADNOUGHTERS' Comments Below and/or Add Your Own V.R.S.N.S.M.V. + S.M.Q.L.I.V.B
I just saw the saddest, lisping faggot lose his cool when everyone jarred him on national TV. Even the catholic with the child-molester glasses was better received by all. It was hilarious.
You suck Heard and you obviously have no friends, as you look like an AIDS patient who just got free last-season clothes from Tarocash.
I have never heard of you before tonights show, and i don't really care if i never hear from you again.
It's nothing personal reallly, just the fact that you offend me beyond belief. You stated on the show that you don't believe in gay marriage partly because of some (unsubstantiated) research that apparently shows a majority of gay men and women aren't in relationships and may not want to be.
Even if this is true (which i highly doubt), why does that mean that those of us in relationships shouldn't have the same rights and same opportunity to choose marriage? I bet some women didn't want the responsibility of voting, does that mean all women shouldn't have been allowed to vote?
I pity you. The self loathing must keep you up at night. Because i bet its not hot man sex that is.
It's a shame it went out on tangents the whole time - I guess it's inevitable when you have that many people with strongly held views all wanting to make their voices heard. I agree with you in that you came across as a different person to your appearance on Speaking in Tongues - 'angry' dreadnought rather than 'contemplative' dreadnought (as I recall anyhow).. the only one to get a "Quiet please John!" from Ms Brockie - tut tut! Yes the room was stacked but re you're kidding yourself if you think most people in the gay community (who according to that survey don't support gay marriage) would agree with your position. I look forward to the federal Libs introducing their civil unions bill. I suspect I'll support it fully.
It was interesting for the theatre of it all, not so much for the content. Thank you for playing your part 
Oh. My. God. I expected you to come across badly but well, I'm sure you're aware of how you came across. Like an idiot, and a short one at that. Why would anyone sit in a room full of loving homosexual couples and suggest that homosexuals "don't have relationships"? Are you retarded?
No, seriously. Are you?
As Matt said, the theatrics of it was rather engaging; and as he said good on you for getting the rebuke: I confess I fell about laughing at that point -- your expression: priceless!
With the amount of editing in post production that can go on before it even hits the air, I'm not surprised with the way it's turned out as it has and the way you've been portrayed.
The one thing I agree with you is that what was meant to be a discussion on 'gay marriage' certainly ended up being more about gay adoption and children within gay relationships than it was supposed to be about the legal recognition of same-sex couples as 'marriage' as you pointed out.
I was expecting more discussion about say the possibilities and range of alternatives of recognising same-sex relationships eg civil unions, partnerships, marriage etc than about the legitimacy of whether same-sex couples could or should have children.
Well, I appreciated you putting in your two cents worth for the other side of the argument, even if the show made you look less than palatable but more entertaining. But I trust that you weren't there to win brownie points for yourself anyway. Unfortunately, most people are generally won over by the heart, not the mind and the media has always preferred to side with the 'underdog', whoever they make them out to be.
The fact that most of the other guests were either opposed to marriage per se, divorced or admittedly not much interested in the thing anyway, only serves to demonstrate why homoactivists, who are usually either ignorant of or opposed to marriage, are the very people who should have nothing to do with defining what a marriage is.
You are a homosexual. You are taking the activist role, making you a homoactivist. Do you have special dispensation from your arbitrary "fags can't make marriage laws" rule and who gave it to you?
Do you own a beret? You seem enough of a psuedo fuckwit to do so.
Mikey, try to argue the issue. I'm really keen to hear what you think about marriage.
Rebecca, the substantiated, robust, peer-reviewed research is contained in the 'Private Lives Report' produced by Latrobe University.
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/
arcshs...ives_report.pdf
It is also totally independent. The findings surprised me too. They totally undo many of the 'gay marriage' advocates' arguments.
The vote provides a good analogy. There is no universal right to vote and the is no universal right to marriage per se. We do no allow children to vote/marry. We do not allow men to marry animals. These are category specific rights, they just don't apply to non-family friendships.
Maddy/Matt, Warren Entsch is not John Howard, John Howard represents the middle ground on this issue. There is no grassroots support for 'gay marriage' in the wider community and thus none in Federal Parliament.
It's a theatrical format, I did what they paid me to do
I was so ineffective, short and retarded you felt compelled to tell me Swatschy? That's a little unusual.
Ha ha Ian! I kept thinking what the rest of the country must be thinking about that ridiculous echo chamber of homoactivists. I got a fairly good idea while watching it with a straight girl and speaking to some mothers.
I was there to tell the truth Andrew and I tried my best to do so. I'm not surprised it upset the people in the studio and some of the DREADNOUGHTERS, but you can be certain it aligns neatly with the opinions of the vast majority of voters.
I support and celebrate marriage Mikey. I don't say, 'marriage sucks, let's give it to everyone' which is a valid paraphrase of some of the arguments heard on the show.
I have no beret and have never worn Tarocash. I was in a Hugo Boss suit with a Ted Baker shirt.
I didn't go on the show to win sexual partners, it's a bit strange to think anyone would do something like that.
Not that any of those points are terribly interesting...
Why do DREADNOUGHTERS support 'gay marriage', why do they oppose it? Why does the vast majority of the elctorate in the US and Australia and across the EU continue to reject the idea?
Mikey, try to argue the issue. I'm really keen to hear what you think about marriage.
You keep on thinking you're worthy of debate, doesn't the church teach you to be humble? When you learn to form your own opinions, I'll debate you, until then, be thankful that another Australian actually knows you exist and cares enough to comment on your little website.
The only people I know that wear Hugo Boss are sales reps who drive nasty cars like Vectras and Peugeots and have crazy frog ringtones. I'm glad to see you can now afford to join the lower-middle classes by shopping in the David Jones bargain bin.
I'll get married when I find someone of marriage material.
Me and my straight friends are already planning a twin bucks night for 2 gay friends of ours that have a great relationship, even though there are no marriage/civil union/whatever you want to call it laws in my state, so the bucks night may be at a bingo hall, 50 years hence. But it WILL happen.
Mikey, you really make yourself look less than intelligent when all you can do is throw personal insults. What's your obsession with John anyway?
John, unfortunately the episode you were on is not available on podcast yet - I look forward to seeing it though.
Try to ignore the nastiness from mikey and others - it says more about them than about you.
Bec
Nastiness is by the by, Bec, but I am interested in real arguments. I'll interact with anyone, from any background
John:
You are clearly wrong when you say that middle Australia does NOT support federal legislation to give same-sex couples equality. In fact, a Newspoll conducted in February 2006 specifically asked this question, and the results show a clear support from all demographics except over 50, and 80 per cent support from the 25-34 demographic. Surprisingly, the MARRIED among respondents were even MORE supportive than the singles (but both had majority support). Basically, only over 50s and low education levels (not post year 10) were the only areas SLIGHTLY against same-sex recognition in federal law.
It makes a joke of your claim that Australia does not support equality for same-sex couples. It shows Entsch is on the middle ground, not Howard.
Oh, and it makes you in the minority too, Mr Dreadful Zero!
http://www.secular.org.au/
articl...ePoll020206.pdf
That Newspoll question and general result was...
SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD INTRODUCE A NEW LAW TO FORMALLY RECOGNISE SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS IN AUSTRALIA
Yes 52% No 37% Don't know 11%
Anastasia, thanks for drawing our attention to that survey:
1. it was paid for by the anti-religious Secular Society, hardly an independent or mainstream organisation;
2. the question was not, do you support gay marriage' it was:
"Thinking now about same sex relationships. Do you personally agree or disagree that the Federal Government should introduce a new law which formally recognises same sex relationships in Australia?"
Such a question could also validly be read to mean the introduction of a law that recognises same sex relationships only to prohibit them. In any event, it doesn't measure support for 'gay marriage'. Even so, 52% support is nothing to crow about.
The 'Private Lives Report' directly contradicts the findings, even amongst the 'gay community'. It had a wider sample (by over 1000 people) and was conducted by an independent university, not a lobby group.
Don't you read. I said same-sex relationshipe equality. The survey questions were performed as part of their standard poll question series (I know, I got asked the questions that weekend, along with who I would vote for, various consumer spending and buying questions, etc).
Despite the survey being COMMISSIONED by the Secular Society of NSW (note, not a gay group), the question was as I presented above, and the response was as I presented above.
My comment stands: You are in the minority when you believe that there is no popular support for same-sex couples to have all the rights afforded in Federal Law (irrespective of how it is brought about in federal law).
The Newspoll had a randomised phone poll of 1200 people and was conducted in a valid, non-biased way. Face it, Dreadful Zero, you're not in the majority.
You can burst into tears now if you like, but no amount of praying will help you out of the fact that mainstream Australia favours equality and fairness for same-sex couples, including their children.
When you argue to the contrary, you are wrong, plain and simple (like most of your arguments).
Cheers,
Anastasia
My mum asked me why you were anti-gay marriage because you were "very queeny" (I think the limp wristed gestures finally gave it away, the lisp could have been from gappy teeth). She said you were the gayest sounding person there. I tried explaining your position, but she told me to shut up and get her a panadol.
1. that report was paid for by the anti-religious secular society, hardly a credible or mainstream organisation
Dude, you just contradicted yourself.
Anastacia is right. So many straight people (and no, not the smelly lefty pinko type, but usually the solid, apolitical, Aussie-bogan type) keep on whinging to me about how unfair it is that gays can't get married.
Yes Anastasia (ah, Tori Amos), I am not disputing the finding, but the finding has nothing directly to do with 'gay marriage'. Ask the direct question and the numbers will plummet.
I support the removal of some discriminatory legislation, but like most people I reject 'gay marriage'.
"You are in the minority when you believe that there is no popular support for same-sex couples to have all the rights afforded in Federal Law (irrespective of how it is brought about in federal law)."
Really? Why then does neither Labor nor the Liberal Party champion 'gay marriage'?
With all due respect Mikey, your private experiences and interactions do not constitute robust political/social research. Oh and there is no contradiction in my comment. What doesn't agree?
Argue the issue? Indeed. Is that what John Heard was doing, when he was demonising same-sex couples as selfish for bringing children into a world they know to be discriminatory against homosexuals? Talk about blaming the victims of injustice. For his next sleight of tongue, perhaps John will be telling us that rape victims deserve it if they dress in a revealing or provocative manner? His sensationalist shock-jockery was in stark contrast to the concise and reasoned comments of the former Justice of the Family Court on the Insight program; a man with infinitely more experience and wisdom in matters of family law than John Heard can profess.
To the extent that popular opinion is not always the most reliable indicator of what is right, the amount of support (or otherwise) within the heterosexual or GLBTQI communities for same-sex marriage is irrelevant. The righteousness of the issue is not proportional to the level of popular support it does or does not enjoy. So quote all the polls you like, it doesn't make the status quo just, fair or right.
THE issue is one of principle: should same-sex couples have the right to enter into a legally-recognised union with all the attendant rights & responsibilities of marriage? On the face of it, yes. Why not? For what rational factual reasons ought they not have that right?
Many of the furphies advanced against same-sex marriage were rejected by a Full Court of the Family Court in February 2003 (re: "Kevin & Jennifer"). The case involved marriage rights of post-operative transgender persons but the findings of the Court are no less valid in the context of same-sex relationships. In its judgement, the Court noted that: marriage is not a legal requirement for procreation nor vice-versa; the institution of marriage is not static and immutable but changes to reflect social need; and secular Australian marriage law is not the possession of religion (or any particular brand thereof). The Commonwealth, who had sought to challenge the marriage, declined to appeal the Court's decision.
The implication, put out by opponents to same-sex marriage (including the condescending, platitudinous John Heard) that all same-sex relationships are somehow inferior, casual or unworthy of protection under the law is invalid. There are many same-sex couples in the community who are exemplars of the enduring commitment and love that marriage is meant to promote. They already live up to the responsibilities of marriage and are no less deserving of its rights. In contrast, there are many opposite-sex couples who do not treat marriage or their partners respectfully, yet your Government has not sought to restrict their marriage rights.
And so, for one reason only, I applaud you, John, in raising the arguments you have. By so doing, you reveal the tenuous basis on which conservative forces continue to conspire against righteous equality and freedom. If this invigorates those who care about such matters, then I say
... Amen.
My argument does not run, 'gay marriage is unpopular, therefore it is bad' rather it is unpopular because it is bad.
Alistair Nicholson is an eminent Australian, but he has a view of families that is and always has been, at odds with the views held by the majority of Australians.
I set out the rational/factual reasons why men should not marry men briefly here:
http://johnheard.blogspot.com/20...-heard-
gay.html
and in greater depth in 'DNA Magazine' here:
http://photos1.blogger.com/hello...4/
johnheard.jpg
With all due respect, the Family Court is not the final arbiter of morality and is certainly far from articulating a view of marriage and family that accords with the views of the Australian people.
Interpersonal commitment is not the only test of marriage, procreative potential is the other key part. No one is arguing against strong relationships, rather against calling or treating something that isn't a marriage a marriage.
Amen indeed. Robust debate never hurt anyone
First time DREADNOUGHTERS should note that only comments with an email (can be kept private) or a URL will receive extended responses.
You all know who I am, if you're writing something that you'd be ashamed to put your name to, don't write it!
With all due respect Mikey, your private experiences and interactions do not constitute robust political/social research.
Just like your own personal beliefs, perhaps?
I would like to know what special dispensation you have to be the only homoactivist who's opinions on marriage are valid. Bacardi and Coke, Daffyd?
Thanks for toning it down Mikey.
I have the dispensation of an open mind and a willingness to look at the real situation, past the homoactivists' silly rhetoric.
I also have the humility to look to the opinions and arguments that convince the majority and see if they have any merit.
It just so happens that they do. As for my personal beliefs, in this case they just happen to accord with the best rational arguments.
That's not a rare thing, Catholics find themselves in that happy situation all the time
Bullshit. Your beliefs happen to accord with the worst irrational argument, that somehow 2 men who are getting hitched (whatever) to ensure financial security for their families and heirs and lets face it as a narcissistic moment in the sun (which I know are the reasons most Catholics marry) will weaken heterosexual marriage.
Only someone with a clinical mental illness would feel their marriage with someone of the opposite sex is undermined by a couple of batty boys with rings and the same surname on their bills and credit card accounts.
You seem to spend a lot of time thinking about guys who love other guys and how you can't and that means any guys who do should not be happy. It's typical behaviour of someone who has been mentally conditioned to deprive themselves of the thing they want because they can't have it. It's like poor people who hate Porsches and slag off at them and try and out-do them on the road. It's rather pathetic, really.
You always come across as an angry young teenager with hate in his eyes. How many trenchcoats do you own? How good are you at counter-strike?
Financial security and inheritance imperatives aren't things that merit marriage. Affective and sexual complementarity are.
I don't hate anyone. What makes you think I can't love other men? You really don't know anything about me, so try to stick on topic.
Well done DREAD.
Looks like you are a poster boy for frustrated peeps. Try to hang in there.
A joke to help lighten the mood I read on Rosie O'Donnell's webapge "What do gay men / lesbians bring to a second date?"
Lesbians - a UHAUL
Gay men - "What? A second date?"
Blessings. +
Affective and sexual complementarity are.
Exactly. But you've said that 2 men can't get hitched (whatever) for those reasons.
You can't love other men if you want to stick to church teaching. You know this.
Loving other men means wanting to have sex with them too, which you can't because it's objectively disordered. You've said it before.
Therefore, you have to be against any form of homosexual relationship, but you're non-committal about that. To gain any credibility with mainstream Australian society, especially with people your own age, you have to make a choice between no-sex or no church, otherwise you're being hypocritical.
John, you're excellent at NOT answering the question. Can we predict a political career on your horizon?
You assert that gay marriage is intrinsically bad, yet nothing you have written thus far rationally supports that assertion. It makes "sense" from a wordy dogmatic Catholic viewpoint, but having discarded Catholicism many years ago as an exercise in futility, in contrast to yourself, it has no relevance to me. Nor should it be required to. Marriage is not "owned" by Catholicism. Catholic views of marriage ought not dictate what form secular marriage law ought take.
Meanwhile, it doesn't matter diddly squat what the Australian people think of the Family Court's views. It ain't about popularity of the issue. It's about doing what's fair, just and reasonable. You continue to hide behind the sophistry that popular support is a surrogate for fairness, justice and reasonableness.
And still the real issue goes unanswered: why shouldn't same-sex couples have the right to enter into a legally-recognised union with all the attendant rights & responsibilities of marriage? Your DNA Article, recycling irrelevant Catholic doctrine, answers nothing. Neither does your blog content answer the question convincingly, substantially or without inconsistency.
You imply that marriage is "about" a whole series of things that marriage law simply does not require. You hold that same-sex couples are undeserving because they cannot meet your extra-legal "standard". And yet you steadfastly disregard the point that there are plenty of opposite-sex couples who do not meet your "standard" but whose right to marry is nonetheless undiminished. What, is this another mocking discrepancy easier to selectively ignore? The Full Court of the Family Court didn't think so. With all due respect, I *would* defer to their combined reasoned judgement than yours (regardless of what a majority of Australians think).
And at the end, what are we left with? The inescapable reality of you (and your ilk) trying to control the everyday lives of others. Depriving consenting adults the option of lawful choice.
And finally, you wrote "What makes you think I can't love other men?". I notice on the CA forums you observe you can love a man but can't (according to your understanding of Catholic dogma) commit homogenital acts. Is that really how you reconcile your homosexuality with Catholicism?
I just read your DNA article, and fuck me, was it just full of hollow, tired platitudes or what? Firstly have a strong platform and secondly, if supposedly nobody cares about this issue, then why do you?
And that photo of you listening to an iPod looks like it was taken for the school newsletter's science club section. You are such a sad geek who has to brand himself as the gay catholic who owns an iPod and wears ugly semi-designer clothes. Your whole life revolves around this rather boring brand. You've been on TV twice and in a gay mag once and you say exactly the same words in the same sequence with the same little voice and everyone sneers at you. How boring for you.
Imagine how much money the magazine could have made if that page had been a full-page ad? Because I reckon many would have just given it a glance and turned the page while thinking "that guy's a tosser", whereas ads usually get a second glance, especially in a specifically targetted magazine like that.
I agree, Mikey. The DNA article was verbose and flimsy. It seemed to audaciously presume that the readership gave a rat's backside about conservative Catholicism & it's perpetual doctrinal Guilt Trip over homosexuality. People just want to get on with their lives without having the secular state unreasonably restrict or disadvantage them in their life decisions.
As someone who cannot see himself ever seeking to legitimise same-sex marriage in his own life, it appears John does not want anyone else to have it either. And yet he cannot see what an outrageous imposition this is upon others who do not subscribe to his belief system. Sigh!
The reason people call you self-hating, Heard, is that you think that any relationship you may have with a man is, by definition, by virtue of your sexuality and his, inferior to one you or any other man may have with a woman.
You think your sexuality makes you a lesser person than you would otherwise have been, less capable of a meaningful relationship than a heterosexual man.
Hence - "self-hating".
PS your arguments were embarrassingly crap.
"You can't love other men if you want to stick to church teaching. You know this. Loving other men means wanting to have sex with them too".
I love my father, but don't want to have sex with him. You have a strange understanding of love Mikey.
All men are called to chastity, whether they're straight or SSA. There is no hypocrisy in my position, I am not perfect, but I'm trying: it's called the human condition.
Brendan, I have answered your questions repeatedly and at length. You claim my responses are not rational, but that's because you irrationally reject the gains of philosophy and are bigoted towards Catholic teaching. That doesn't mean I'm being evasive, it means you're being biased.
SSA couples shouldn't have the same rights as married couples or enter into 'marriages' because their relationships don't fit the marriage criteria. As I said in the DNA article, it's like checking a man into a labour ward at the hospital. It might make sense to the PC police, but it is practically and logically futile.
I am not proposing a change. I am not trying to control anyone. Rather, homoactivists are trying to redefine marriage (which most of them hate anyway) for everyone else.
Catholicism prohibits homogenital acts, it does not prohibit, indeed encourages and celebrates, love between men.
"...if supposedly nobody cares about this issue, then why do you?"
Because homoactivists claim they speak for all SSA men and for the wider community. This is plain nonsense. The DNA issue and this Insight programme are good examples of this arrogant bias. I was the lone voice of dissent in the first and almost the lone voice in the second. However, we know that the vast majority of Australians, Americans, etc. reject 'gay marriage' and indeed that the majority of SSA men don't want the thing. But you'd never know the truth watching SBS or reading the 'gay press'.
"It seemed to audaciously presume that the readership gave a rat's backside about...Catholicism"
DNA Magazine contacted me, commissioned me and paid me for the article. I did not approach them. The feedback has been mostly positive. Indeed, that article prompted the SBS invitation. Someone must give a rat's.
Thank you for your opinion Lefty, but I am not surprised that you disagree with me. You seem to disagree with most of the nation on most issues. My arguments might indeed have been crap (I don't think they were) but I had the balls to contribute them and leave myself open for honest debate. In light of that fact, I'm interested to read what you think about 'gay marriage'; it's obvious what you think of silly John Heard.
I'd be self-hating if 'gay marriage' was good for SSA men and I still rejected it. But, it's not and that's why I reject it.
It would be good to hear from married couples and parents. Believe it or not, straight people have far more insight into and experience of these matters than single, banner-waving activists from Darlinghurst. Why is marriage important? What is best for children?
It would also be good to hear homoactivists actually tell us why SSA men and women should be allowed to marry without resorting to arguments about empty equality. If mere equality were the ultimate goal of all legislation, we'd allow children to drive and animals to vote.
Other than a piece of paper and a collection of rights that most of us don't want/need (remember, the research shows that most SSA men are not in any kind of relationship and most SSA men and women have no intention of ever getting 'married') - what can 'gay marriage' give SSA couples?
Why not a limited civil union scheme? Please note, DREADNOUGHT has always supported a limited civil union scheme. Note also, there are private arrangements like those discussed by the mother of the 16yo lady, that negate any need for 'gay marriage'. Why not pursue that angle rather than overhauling/attacking marriage per se and the family?
Missed the broadcast but skimmed through the transcript. Haven't had time to read all the comments here but I will do.
I'll just say now - this is fuckin hilarious. When you can control the discourse, here in your secluded blog-castle, you can fool yourself that you are the arbiter of what is 'true' and 'reasonable' and 'just'. But put you in a room of people who may not agree with you, put you in a space where you can't control the discourse, and you fall to pieces.
I noted with interest that you didn't throw your favourite self-created epithet "homoactivist" around in that room. I wonder why not?
I traded one echo-chamber (DREADNOUGHT) for the homoactivists' echo-chamber.
I am willing to engage others who disagree with me, on their terms and on their turf.
We have nothing to fear from robust debate. To this point, there is still no coherent opposition, no challenge to the research I cited, no widely accepted counter arguments.
There is just silly name-calling, crude slurs and appeals to emotive guff. If that's the best homoactivists can offer, I'll do a show like this one, even with double the hostile audience, over and over again.
I might have been fairly lonely in the SBS studio, but my views are held by the vast majority of voters in the US and Australia. When I shouted, however rudely/pathetically, the nation roared.
I'm sure the majority of voters in Australia think the death penalty should be an option and all asylum seekers should rot for years on a poxy Pacific Island until they go back to the horrors they came from. That doesn't make it right. It doesn't turn these ideas into a sound basis for public policy.
Brendan Lloyd's right, you need to stop arguing from bald-faced populism. It's not a good look. And it's boring.
I'm not arguing from populism at all. 'Gay marriage' is unpopular because it it bad, not merely bad because it is unpopular.
I'm a little more humble about listening to the views of the wider community than either you or Lloyd. We do live in a democracy 
"The nation roared"??? Come on John, you're not serious. Surely you're starting to see how silly some of the things you come out with sound. Isn't there something about humility in Catholic teaching?
I'd sound silly if I claimed that the nation is usually wrong. You just said the views of other people (even most other people) don't count for much.
If that's not arrogance personified, what is?
It's also a particularly ineffective way to go about lobbying for something.
Please try to engage with the message, not the foibles of the messenger. I've never wanted to be a slick product Georgina, rather carry slick ideas into strange places and see what change can be brought about.
"I'm a little more humble about listening to the views of the wider community" (?!?!)
This from a man whom the facilitator of a televised discussion had to expressly ask to stop talking over others and to allow others to speak. This is what you call "humble" "listening"?
That studio audience did not represent the wider community. It was stacked, perhaps unavoidably so, with self-interested homoactivists. If not, why does neither Labor not the Liberal Party support 'gay marriage'? Where are the grassroots marchers? There is just no obvious tide of support and indeed the research demonstrates as much, even within the 'gay community'.
It would have been cowardly to remain silent while people carried on like 'gay marriage' is a foregone conclusion.
It's not. Not anywhere in Australia (not even Stanhope supports it in the ACT) and certainly not for any serious term in the US.
John,
At least your fashion sense was better this time around, compared to when you were on “Speaking in Tongues” a few months ago. Last night, you only sounded like a prissy, huffing young poof (instead of dressing like one, as well). Congratulations – someone may make a human being of you, yet.
My observations, otherwise, are here:
http://paulwatson.blogspot.com/2...-q-what-
do.html
Congratulations John. The reaction on this board is evidence that you have touched a sore point in the gay community. You and my good friend Angela Conway did a great job. Chris Meany came across better than I expected too.
Tou asked for a perspective from married hetero sexual people, what about the views of a teenager? I watched the show with a female friend and my 15 year old daughter. My daughter's perspective was interesting in that she thought the pro-gay marriage/adoption arguments were all about self-gratification with little thought to the wellbeing of the child. She reacted particularly badly to a child being told 'donor' was its daddy as she thought this was highly impersonal and degrading to the child's dignity.
I return briefly against my better judgement to say that you are a wanker beyond reproach, John and your "performance" last night cemented that more than ever for me (and quite a few other people if the comments here and the Insight comments are anything to go by!)
Here's the answer to your ad nauseum question:
I want to marry my partner because we love one another, are committed to spending the rest of our lives together, want to celebrate in front of family and friends and want to join the rest of society who have chosen marriage. In addition, we will be bringing issue into the relationship and I want our child(ren) to have married parents. As a bonus, I want our relationship and family to be recognised in law. AND, I want to stop being forced to tick the "single" or "de facto" box on every fucking form I fill in!!!
Now, just because your warped Catholic sensibilities are damaged by my innocent request, doesn't mean that it's wrong. It just means your warped Catholic sensibilities are damaged.
You talk about the studio audience being "homoactivists" - many of them were just regular people who happened to be gay - they weren't members of any lobby group or the like - by your definition, you too, are a "homoactivist".
Can you PLEASE stop talking for every same-sex attracted person, because believe me, you DO NOT represent my views/needs/wants, shut your pompous mouth for once and actually LISTEN to what people are saying to you?
Either that or take your bullshit and shove it firmly down your own throat, rather than vomitting this nonsense all over the rest of us.
Paul, not surprisingly, you've got me fairly right when you say that I say, in part:
"...that gay marriage is an ideologically-driven hoax, sought to be inflicted by a gay minority onto the gay majority."
I also agree with you about the financial issues. Of course, we disagree about the nature of marriage per se, but I'd like to hear more from other SSA men, like you, who reject 'gay marriage'.
Why do you do so?
I also agree that I did not invent myself or my views in isolation. I am in daily contact with thousands of SSA men and women from the United Arab Emirates to Manhattan and most of them reject 'gay marriage'. The arguments I use are derived from ones that have proven convincing to intelligent people all over the world. To claim I am some sort of extremist - and you don't, but the homoactivists, ironically, do - is to read the zeitgeist in a massively ego-preserving manner.
I dress as I am required to dress and it really shouldn't be an issue. Am I J-Lo?! Last time I wore a t-shirt with 'love will tear us apart' across the chest. It was, and is, wildly appropriate.
Ignoring the violent tone of your comment Kelly (surely not something you'd want your children to read - I welcome debate, but threatening language is unwelcome) I will respond to this claim:
"Can you PLEASE stop talking for every same-sex attracted person, because believe me, you DO NOT represent my views/needs/wants, shut your pompous mouth for once and actually LISTEN to what people are saying to you?"
Prove that I don't speaks for others. I have solid research in my belt, what do you have but your own desires and ideas?
You claim to want, want, want. 'gay marriage' for multiple reasons but none of them actually explains why you need to have a 'marriage' rather than some other private legal arrangement.
If same sex couples feel they 'need' a piece of paper from the government to make their love real, they'd be better seeking relationship counselling than a marriage licence. Indeed, we'd all do better to focus this maelstrom of energy on loving each other right, rather than blaming our troubles on the State or on our brothers and sisters in the wider community.
If a man or a woman works for, contributes to, supports a lobby group that advocates 'gay marriage' he/she is a homoactivist. Indeed, you work for the ACE. Why are homoactivists ashamed to state clearly what they are?
I am a same sex attracted, Catholic, male.
I've done some damage, haven't I Marie-Louise The 'donor' business upset me too. So too the claim that 'Dad' is a 'concept'. My dear Dad is not a concept. It was telling that the homoactivists eventually (and they usually do) came around to admitting that they've either failed at marriage, don't want to get married or hate marriage anyway.
And these are the kind of people who should be entrusted with the responsibility for defining marriage for everyone else?! Not while I have the strength to be told to shut up on national television.
Angela was terribly effective. Her simple, eloquent defence of the family registered far beyond the room. I imagine she was the most sympathetic figure on the show, after the children.
I think the referendum or vote idea is actually an excellent example of how the government should lead the community. If the US had allowed a public vote on interacial marriage the polls show that even today the vote would not allow people of colour to marry anglo-saxons.
I agree that there are many gay couples who do not wish to marry, but I also know many heterosexual couples who never intend to marry either. Why should the option only be there for straight couples if they change their mind about that?
I felt deeply sad that the gentleman representing the Catholic family group and other people repeatedly stated that the point of marriage is to have children. The gentleman I referred to said several times that sex should specifically be an attempt to procreate and that sex that is not an attempt to procreate is wrong or misguided. I felt extremely hurt for my straight married friends who intend never to have children, as well as the many many straight couples who are struggling with infertility at this point. Their marriages were defined as null and void by that man.
I find it astounding as a young man that you would make statements about people choosing to be discriminated against and experience deeply troubling legal problems. It is not so many years ago that you could have been arrested for being gay and actively harassed by the police with no legal recourse.
My partner is only 31 years old, yet she has been pulled over by the police in Brisbane when she was 20 (only 11 years ago!) for having short hair and was bullied and pushed by them, called abusive names in reference to her sexuality. I am thankful ever day for the "homoactivists" that have come before me that mean this is unlikely to happen again. I largely feel safe living my life with my partner - going shopping, having drinks at the pub, being "out" at work - which is a luxury that generations before us could not enjoy. Perhaps you should consider this next time you are able to proclaim yourself as gay in the media without fear of retribution in the workplace or by police.
And you said "You chose to have your child even though you knew that there were all these things that would count against her. How can you say that at that point you have the child's best interests and not your own in the forefront of your mind? "
Is this not what people could say to parents who choose to give birth to a child they know is disabled? That they know is of a non-white race? That they know is a girl in a world where women are still paid less than men for equivalent work? For any parent who chooses to have a child in a world that is violent and ecologically struggling? The potential extrapolations from this comment are endless.
I am biased in this field. I am gay. I am in a long-term relationship. We are trying to have a baby. We both pay lots of tax and are fully employed. We both choose to work in the public health system. We would like to get married. I was never interviewe
"Can you PLEASE stop talking for every same-sex attracted person, because believe me, you DO NOT represent my views/needs/wants, shut your pompous mouth for once and actually LISTEN to what people are saying to you?"
"Prove that I don't speaks for others. "
You don't speak for me or anyone I know. No "proof" required other than my say so because I'm living it, John. You're not.
"You claim to want, want, want. 'gay marriage' for multiple reasons but none of them actually explains why you need to have a 'marriage' rather than some other private legal arrangement."
The reasons I've given are identical to the reasons straight couples would offer. Why then, can't they make do with some other private legal arrangement? Why should I spend money hiring lawyers to protect my relationship which is no different to my straight friends, when they can just get married?
"If same sex couples feel they 'need' a piece of paper from the government to make their love real, they'd be better seeking relationship counselling than a marriage licence. "
You arrogant, arrogant man! Because YOU don't want to get married, does not mean others don't want to. Do you EVER stop this judgemental rubbish? My relationship doesn't need counselling - after 12.5 years together we're still going very strong, thank you - what I would like is to have the same options open to me as the rest of society in recognising my relationship.
"Indeed, we'd all do better to focus this maelstrom of energy on loving each other right, rather than blaming our troubles on the State or on our brothers and sisters in the wider community. "
I don't blame my straight brothers and sisters for being able to take advantage of marriage! What a ridiculous argument. I want to join them, but I don't blame them for a malfunctioning law. Indeed, many of them are fighting for me to be able to choose to get married as well.
"If a man or a woman works for, contributes to, supports a lobby group that advocates 'gay marriage' he/she is a homoactivist. Indeed, you work for the ACE. Why are homoactivists ashamed to state clearly what they are?"
Read my message again. I was talking specifically about the people in the audience and I said the majority of them are not involved in any lobby - they were there simply as people. I have never pretended to be anyone other than who I am. I have never denied being a member of ACE - I have no shame.
I am a same sex attracted, Catholic, male.
Bully for you.
Hey Mermaidgrrrrl. Thanks for your long comment. The referendum on interracial marriage is conjecture. Who says it wouldn't pass? Australians gave our indigenous brothers and sisters the vote - because it was good and popular - in the 1967 Referendum.
With all due respect (and I mean that) your views of the meaning of sex, procreation and marriage are not only unpopular, they'd lead to massive social disintegration.
You say:
"...I figure the more queer femme dykes trying to conceive whilst attempting to subvert the dominant gender stereotypes and promote feminism in a patriarchal society who write about it - THE BETTER'
If that is your reason for access to children, if such a divisive idea of human society is the basis of your support for 'gay marriage', why on earth would a serious person (let alone a reasonable politician or a man!) support your claims?
This is indicative of what we're fighting against. No one is trying to stifle freedom of expression. Femme dykes can do what they please. However, the common good demands that we recognise, celebrate and encourage the family.
This makes obvious sense to almost everyone else outside the extremist homoactivist circles. It has been the cornerstone of civilization in the West, the East and under almost every regime ever tried (including Communism).
Where the otherwise pointless desire of a tiny minority to act out their personal whims clashes with the interests of humanity as a whole, reason dictates and the common good demands, that the people and their governments legislate in the interests of the family.
"You don't speak for me or anyone I know. No "proof" required other than my say so because I'm living it, John. You're not."
If that's proof Kelly, it's hardly scientific, let alone socially credible.
The reasons aren't the same as for straight couples. Straight couples' love is productive of new life. Why ignore this obvious and wonderful difference?
I deliberately didn't comment directly on your relationship Kelly. it's none of my business.
"...what I would like is to have the same options open to me as the rest of society in recognising my relationship"
No, homoactivists want to get 'married' and have children, even though their relationships are infertile. The situation is not analogous to a marriage so there is no unfair discrimination.
From even basic googling, the audience was either directly associated with lobby groups or affiliated with them at a remove. I am reasonably sure that Rodney Croome provided most of the guests (indeed, he even suggested me!).
Bully indeed! It brings me constant, calm joy I really do think we'd agree on many things Kelly. Your interest in children has always struck me as deeply moving. I hope that one day you'll have a quiet beer with me and learn that I'm not some monster.
Thanks Louise!
I don't drink alcohol generally speaking.
Although it kills you to admit it or see it, we ARE bringing children into our relationships have have been for decades. Just because these children are only biologically related to one parent does not make them any less of parents. Try your argument with infertile straight couples and see how far it gets you. According to your logic, they too shouldn't have their relationships recognised. Or how about a couple of friends of ours who have no intention of having children and in fact, the guy had the "snip" prior to getting married so there could be no "accidents". Should they have been allowed to get married?
None of this is pioneering- what is pioneering is people like Alistair Nicholson who see the denial of relationship recognition to same-sex couples as it truly is - "cruel".
Your arguments are inhumane and full of holes. I suspect at some level you know it too.
I love my father, but don't want to have sex with him. You have a strange understanding of love Mikey.
Yawn. You have a strange understanding of love. Whenever a guy says they want to fuck another guy, this is your default fallback line. It's nonsense and makes you seem rather weird, who'd even think of such a thing!
Again, you skirt around the issue of male 2 male sex, because what you'd like to do is at polar opposites of what the church tells you to do. Make the choice to be a straight churchgoer or a gay non-churchgoer and we'll all leave you alone. You insinuated homsexuality was a choice on Insight...
I deliberately didn't comment directly on your relationship Kelly. it's none of my business.
Exactly. So why do you keep trying to lay the parameters for other gay people?
I dress as I am required to dress and it really shouldn't be an issue. Am I J-Lo?! Last time I wore a t-shirt with 'love will tear us apart' across the chest. It was, and is, wildly appropriate.
And what exactly are you. A sad, pretentious wanker who has no ideas of his own.
I hope that one day you'll have a quiet beer with me and learn that I'm not some monster.
Still looking for friends, huh? What's wrong, are you the only gay in the parish, Daffyd?
I am a same sex attracted, Catholic, male.
You're "a world-class fucking idiot" too.
Brendan, I have answered your questions repeatedly and at length. You claim my responses are not rational, but that's because you irrationally reject the gains of philosophy and are bigoted towards Catholic teaching. That doesn't mean I'm being evasive, it means you're being biased.
You're biased against non-Catholics and the gains made in science, technology, psychology and plain common sense. You are in effect stuck in the middle ages. Do you shit in a hole in the ground?
I'm over this. This is occasionally entertaining in a perverse kind of way, but really, I’m over this. I'll tell you why. I've finally realised that the debate you have constructed here is imbued with an inherent negativity. Ok, so you say "gay marriage" does not have wide support. Of course that's contestable but it's also beside the point.
We know what you don’t want (deafeningly, sometimes obnoxiously), but what DO you want? What do YOU stand for? What POSITIVE changes do you champion that add something worthwhile to the lives of gay and lesbian people (indeed, anyone)? When suicide rates are massively higher for queer teens why do queer teens need another voice shouting at them - no, you can never have that? If you say you support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, why don't you spend half your energy making that happen rather than shouting about what you don't want?
Actually, (warming to my theme) this negativity is also evident in your posts on other issues. Rather than POSITIVELY trying to envisage a world beyond gender violence, oppression and other forms of objectification you criticise women's reproductive choices.
Your life is defined by what you can't have; what you can't do. Before you say 'You don't know me or my life' I'm just basing this on what you devote your posting to. Nobody is asking you to support gay marriage. But what do you support and what are you doing to make it happen? What do you contribute?
Your knee-jerk made-up insult of “homoactivist” is also inadvertently revealing. (And yes, as you well know, the prefix ‘homo’ used in this context is pejorative. You can ask any fifteen year old that.) Again, I ask, if you are so confident with that descriptor why was it surprisingly absent in that debate (although insert in almost every sentence here in your blog-castle)? What is wrong with being ‘active’ on an issue? If not marriage – and no-one is saying it need be marriage – why not civil unions, or homophobic violence or high rates of queer teens killing themselves or ANYTHING? What do you stand for Mr. John Heard?
What do you stand for Mr. John Heard?
Being an antagonistic little shit.
Georgina,
It is a little disingenuous to claim a position that supports, celebrates and encourages the family is somehow merely negative. I also support the Catholic Church, the Pope, the bands and books I list on the sidebar and have celebrated things as divergent as male on male love, The Smiths, compassion in the treatment of SSA seminarians and young men generally and I write all the time about the virtues of loving each other right.
I use shorthand here (homoactivist, etc.) because it makes better sense. In person, I try to be polite, and use first names or other descriptors.
Really, I'm not here to respond ad nauseum to pop psych analyses of my motivations or bitching about my suit. If you have an argument about 'gay marriage' set it down and I will engage with it.
If you only have invective and sloppy insults, go kick a stump or something.
"...If not marriage – and no-one is saying it need be marriage – why not civil unions".
Why not indeed. I have said repeatedly that I support limited civil unions. I argue against 'gay marriage'. You can see my arguments on the sidebar Georgina.
I stand for interpersonal respect, self-reliance and the reawakening of SSA men's moral voice. I stand for true love, lasting friendships and a truly supportive/creative, not merely political/tired 'gay community'.
Kelly, a man and a woman are parents: one is the father of the child, the other is the mother. Mom + Dad + children = family. This equation is enriched and protected by marriage. Taking out one element and insering something else might hopefully result in an otherwise fine situation, but that situation is not a marriage and it is hardly ideal.
It is pioneering, obviously, otherwise there wouldn't be a debate. Homoactivists are, on this issue and most others, way out on the extreme fringe. You all know this. Go to your mall and tell them you're a lesbian who wants to marry a woman and acquire children. I know the kind of response you'll get - and it has nothing to do with simple bigotry.
Mikey, choosing to stick your cock in a butt is a choice. You keep talking about science, technology, psychology and common sense, yet you never cite a study, hardly ever raise an argument and you constantly refer back to obscenities. If the evidence is so overwhelming, why can't you put your finger on any of it?
Kelly,
I think what John means is that hetero marriages are marriages of male and female, which are sexually complementary, and can produce life. That is pretty significant; biology is a fact. He is suggesting that this can be the beginning of an argument for defining marriage and its purpose. It does not mean, and neither does the Catholic church suggest, that individual biologically infertile heterosexual couples are not valid. But I think there is something to be said for this comparison.. at least it can offer a basis for a philosophical argument. But arguing only from compassion (I know these really nice people who....) can't be the only way we make social laws, can it?
John, it is difficult for many (often very decent) people to see why anyone would argue against gay marriage, especially when it is this argument from natural law. (I think you sometimes forget to remember to give the argument well, but rather make it as an afterthought of your own thinking.)
one reason for this may be that we have spent the last 8 or 10 decades doing everything possible to eliminate biology as determinative of our moral choices and life decisions. Most notably, and most seriously: childbearing. It is hard to see beyond the instant gratification given by those decades, today.
Also, the idea that society's laws would be made based on an idea(l) of what is best for the whole of society (and not just what makes people happy or seems like a nice thing to do) -- has gotten lost in U.S. society, which is not known for its great history and civics classes. How is it elsewhere? Or, if not lost, then very much muddled by the persuasive nature of our own desires, which we are able to indulge now more than ever before.
Keep asking the questions. Doesn't ANYONE want to try to answer them?
What is marriage? What is it for?
If you answer: to make the participants happy and give them a chance to celebrate love--well, is that enough? Is that all? Why have it at all? (Marriage is pure hell, people, if you go in thinking its main purpose is to please and satisfy you and your partner.)
And more:
Does marriage have any social value? What is it? How can that be encouraged? Should the state be in the business of saying anything about marriage? If not, why not? If so, on what grounds?
Now, can people take a break from petty hateful name-calling, (laughingly, one common attack on John accuses "hatred," in a manner that drips with its own venom and bile) -----and try to think??? THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And if anyone wants to take a few personal swings at me, here is some ammo: I am 31, married with two kids (and another on the way! GASP!), slightly overweight, and I shop at Goodwill. I come from a poor family that was "the loud family" on the block. I was a nerd in high school. I got knocked up at age 27 by a gang-banger in rural New Mexico. I am a stay-at-home-mom. Mmmm let's see.... OOH! Sometimes I don't
Mom
You live in Australia (unfortunately). We say MUM.
...get a shower everyday.
(blogger always cuts my wordy self off. )
Now can anyone resist the temptation to insult me personally, and answer the @$!% questions??!
Mikey, choosing to stick your cock in a butt is a choice. You keep talking about science, technology, psychology and common sense, yet you never cite a study, hardly ever raise an argument and you constantly refer back to obscenities. If the evidence is so overwhelming, why can't you put your finger on any of it?
You never cite anything other than vatican lies.
There are thousands of vistors to this site and I've received emails indicating that many DREADNOUGHTERS feel too scared to wade into this particularly vitriolic debate. We all benefit if we pull back and try to behave better.
I encourage shy DREADNOUGHTERS, of whatever persuasion, to speak up. Dreadnoone, dreadnothing
In other news, who said 'gay marriage' wouldn't lead to bigamy/polygamy? Some people seem to think it's a logical and acceptable next step.
Once again, these views are wildly divorced from the common understandings of love, fidelity and family that underpin and enrich our societies.
Out of thousands of comments about you on the Internet, thousands say you're a fuckwit and one says you're good. That one is written by you. FIGJAM?
Hey, Mikey, got anything interesting to say? Can you resist what I posted above about myself, and instead answer the questions thoughtfully?
C'mon. I know you can do it.
Love,
There are thousands of vistors to this site and I've received emails indicating that many DREADNOUGHTERS feel too scared to wade into this particularly vitriolic debate. We all benefit if we pull back and try to behave better.
You always say this. Show concrete evidence.
A few words aren't going to hurt them, especially if they have jebus on their side.
I have repeatedly cited the 'Private Lives Report' from LaTrobe University. The Vatican influences the lives of 1.1 billion people globally. You might disagree with the Church, but you cannot dismiss her arguments in a sentence. If you do, you reveal yet more bigotry, but still no counter-argument.
Go for it Corita! You make some very strong points. Particularly with regard to what marriage is and what it is for. Who will answer her? Who actually has her experience of marriage and family?
I am sorry if I make the natural law argument afterwards, but it is a little complicated to get out in three second TV grabs (unfortunately)
I have an open sitemeter at the base of the page Mikey. But, again: what does this have to do with 'gay marriage'?
Make your mark man or go pester someone else.
I am sorry if I make the natural law argument afterwards, but it is a little complicated to get out in three second TV grabs (unfortunately)
Wow it must be such a strong basis for your "argument" if you can't articulate it simply.
I've tried debating the issues with you, but you ignore me and continue your narcissistic grandstanding.
[...comment deleted because it was deeply offensive...] - DN
Edited By Siteowner
[...comments deleted because they were deeply offensive...] - DN
You may choose to be a catholic, just like you say I "choose" to have sex with men, but shut the fuck up about it and try being a good catholic instead of telling the rest of us that we should too.
Edited By Siteowner
Coreta,
You ask "What is marriage?". Here's one view of marriage, lifted from the SBS Insight message board, that seems quite valid:
"Of course gay people should be able to marry if they wish. The notion that marriage is some mystical union between a man and a woman is ludicrous. Marriage was always about property and inheritance until after WW2 when it became romanticised. So, why shouldn`t gay people protect their money and inheritance the way everybody else does, and if they wish to be romantic about it as well - go for it. I started adult life as a heterosexual and got married, am now a lesbian. I would not want to marry because I have decided that I prefer to remain economically independent. This is my right to choose, same as anyone should have the right to choose to either do it or not.
Allen"
Who chose you to be the dissenting voice for gays?
Here's another who seems (shock horror) to believe that marriages and family should be based on "love and acceptance":
"In regards to Insight Tuesday 16th May - Gay Marriage. I am a happy heterosexual in full support of gay relationships and marriage and think many other Australians feel the same. I love this country and the wonderful mix of people we have here. I believe any loving committed relationship deserves recognition. Having worked as a midwife I know there are many different types of families out there and who are we to say one is going to work better than another. Gay marriages, children or no children should be allowed and respected. There is not enough love and acceptance in this world.
Thank you.
Judith Darby"
Mikey, if you can't control yourself mate, I will ban you. We're here to argue about 'gay marriage' not to hear you rant about sex, Catholicism, Christ and whatever else happens to be up your nose. Your comments are obsessive and offensive. Stop it. This is your final warning.
"Marriage was always about property and inheritance until after WW2 when it became romanticised."
Who says so? This is historically inaccurate, not to mention wildly depressive. This is an opinion on marriage, it is not an argument for 'gay marriage'.
One midwife says she supports 'gay marriage' but again, gives no good reasons as to why.
Don't any of you have reasons? Or is it all gut-feeling and random assertions?
Ok, back to gay marriage. Some, not all, gay and lesbians wish to marry for the same reasons that some, and not all heterosexual couples wish to marry. A mix of economic and property reasons, a desire to have their relationship acknowledged at the highest level, and a desire to give their families a sense of long term stability.
And they are having families. And it's not tearing apart the social fabric. So why not be honest and upfront about it and give those families state recognition too, equal to that afforded heterosexual families?
A broad ranging literature review was conducted a couple of years back that concluded that children in gay and lesbian families achieve equal outcomes in terms of social development. You can find it here: http://www.glrl.org.au/pdf/
major...the_parents.pdf
And before you go discrediting the source without addressing the findings (as you are fond of doing) yes it was commissioned by the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby BUT: 1) It is a literature review, meaning that it is an overview of a number of independent studies on the subject and 2) it is authored by a Sydney University Law professor, one of the most prestigous (and mainstream) law schools in Australia.
Here's one example of the findings of those studies. A 1996 study that followed the lives of lesbian familes for 16 years, comparing them to heterosexual families, came to this conclusion:
"Children brought up by a lesbian mother not only showed good
adjustment as young children but also continued to function well as
adolescents and as young adults, experiencing no detrimental longterm effects in terms of their mental health, their family relationships, and relationships with peers and partners in comparison with those from heterosexual mother families."
This is a bit more than "gut feelings and random assertions".
You are WEAK
what a weak little faggot you are. Go back to "researching" barebacking forums or whatever it is you do to "find" "stats" on why no gays want to get married.
[...unfortunately, I have banned mikey for obsessive, irrelevant, offensive posts stuffed with profanity, blasphemy and simple bigotry. I don't get paid to do this, I will not put up with tiresome distractions...argue a rational point or go bother some other group of people, DREADNOUGHTERS deserve better] - DN
Edited By Siteowner
"A mix of economic and property reasons, a desire to have their relationship acknowledged at the highest level, and a desire to give their families a sense of long term stability."
These are some reasons why couples marry, but without procreation, they are not good enough. Sans children, marriage would not exist. This is not a religious claim, it is a political and philosophical fact.
That review is not independent, it was paid for and conducted by a 'gay marriage' lobby group. I'm not after any kind of 'research', I am after independent, objectively verifiable findings. There are none that support 'gay marriage'.
With respect, Jenni Millbank is an activist. She chose which studies to review and she reviewed them in a personal capacity. The law faculty and its prestige or otherwise have nothing to do with this survey. She also did not review all studies everywhere so it is silly to claim the report is free from bias.
What was the 1996 study? Who commissioned it? What does it have to do with 'gay marriage'?
If the children of unmarried lesbians were no worse off, how is that an argument for 'gay marriage' for the children's sake? It's not.
I'd like to briefly return to John's previous comments that I put to one side in order to address the debate at hand.
"I use shorthand here (homoactivist, etc.) because it makes better sense. In person, I try to be polite, and use first names or other descriptors."
This is contradictory. On the one hand, you claim the word is mere shorthand, yet on the other, you acknowledge that using it in person would not be polite. That's disingenuous.
I fail to see how criticising gay & lesbian families (even, offensively, in the face of one such happy and loving family) = celebrating and supporting the family. That's again, disingenuous.
So, what are you doing to actively promote civil unions? That was my point. How do your actions and arguments positively contribute to the lives of ordinary gay/lesbian/transgendered/queer people? That was my point.
All a queer teen reading this blog would hear is : no, no, not for you, disordered, no, can't do that, sorry, no, look don't touch, no, no, NO.
NO!
"Kelly, a man and a woman are parents: one is the father of the child, the other is the mother."
Dreadnought, when are you going to understand the reality is that PEOPLE are parents. Being the "correct" gender does not necessarily make you a parent. My biological father, for example, has never been in my life, nor would I welcome him. My stepfather, on the other hand, has been there for me since I was 6 years old. Biology and gender to not make a parent. BEING a parent, makes a parent.
"It is pioneering, obviously, otherwise there wouldn't be a debate."
Gays and lesbians having kids is not pioneering - it's been done for decades. What is pioneering is these same families are now asking for the same rights that every other family receives automatically.
"Homoactivists are, on this issue and most others, way out on the extreme fringe. You all know this. Go to your mall and tell them you're a lesbian who wants to marry a woman and acquire children. I know the kind of response you'll get - and it has nothing to do with simple bigotry. "
You are completely wrong. We are out to EVERYONE - including strangers we happen across. We are also very open about trying to conceive - even with strangers. We have NEVER received a negative response. EVER. YOU are the only person who insults us by saying on national television that we're making a bad choice.
The point is SOME people want to have the ability to marry. You think they shouldn't so YOU have to come up with real evidence that says it's a bad idea that they do. This study says that children of lesbian families can be healthy and happy in the same proportion as children of heterosexual couples. If that's the case then why not enable those that choose to formalise their relationship in a marriage to do so? It removes one of the arguments that's touted against gay marriage ie that it's bad for families.
If you say it's a bad thing, you have to show why it's a bad thing. Who will it harm? What evidence do you have for that belief?
Georgina, I don't conflate the man with his arguments. Rodney Croome and I (plus most of the other serious homoactivists in Australia and some in the US) have had a beer together and chatted amicably enough about our differences. We all agree that we're trying to work for a better future.
I don't believe civil unions need to be actively supported at a political level. If two men want to enter into one, they can contract into it at a private level. This is not only less angst-ridden, it is certainly less vulgar. There is absolutely no practical difference between such an arrangement and going along to the ACT for a 'civil union'.
I don't think this constant begging for 'recognition' or approval from the State and others is healthy for any man, let alone a vulnerable same sex attracted guy. Rather than saying love isn't real unless it is legislated, I'd prefer to encouraged people to love each other right. To shake the world with their self-respect and interpersonal commitment: a love that doesn't always say "me, me, I want, I need" but rather, focusses on the other, even when it hurts to do so
I'll let DREADNOUGHTERS decide whether or not I do anything for them. I will add that I receive masses of email and respond to every single letter, often at length. It takes me hours to get through some of it.
I get most of my emails from same sex attracted young men. Where you hear negatives, they read a real alternative to the hedonism and pap of 'gay culture'. Where you read 'no' they see a 'yes' to life-affirming, self-reliant ideas that truly lead to flourishing, not just the next protest party.
DREADNOUGHT is, ultimately, one enormous YES or SERVIAM.
Some people want to drive while drunk. That we don't let them is not a sign of unjust discrimination, it is an act of compassion. Don't you agree?
If we know that 'gay marriage' warps the natural order and blocks man's access to true love and flourishing, opposing it is also a compassionate act, no?
The onus is not, actually, on anyone to show why 'gay marriage' is wrong (although I do so frequently and even recently in the post attached) it is rather on those who'd scrap the current, eons old definition of marriage and replace it with something else.
There is still no good reason advanced, here or on the SBS program, as to why this should happen. You've only demonstrated you don't understand what marriage is, and others have shown they don't care what it is.
Again, very good reasons why such people should not be put in charge of defining marriage for the rest of humanity.
Anon, we're talking about rearranging society for the sake of a minority of a minority. We know that doing so (as with too generous welfare payments, etc.) provides perverse incentives for people to make bad choices.
I am not saying that SSA people cannot be good parents. I am not saying that all heteros are good parents.
Rather, I am saying that the State, in the interest of the common good and the best environment for the raising of children, must always act to encourage the family. The ideal family is, two loving parents, one male and one female and their happy children. No one can seriously argue with this, it is written into our genes and is respected and celebrated as the ideal across most cultural barriers.
The government should not be in the business of encouraging social experimentation and militating against the best interests of the family.
Oh, and welcome to the vistors from the Republic of Iran and the United Arab Emirates! Homoactivists should shift to nations where serious discrimination is still carried out against SSA young men and where even accessing DREADNOUGHT is a crime. There is a fight to be won, but it's not about 'gay marriage'.
Anonymous, parents are male and female - one of each. No same sex couple can create another human life without the introduction of genetic material from someone of the opposite sex. 'Donor' will therefore become part of that reality - a triad, not a couple, however you wish to define it. "Donor' will continue to be part of the relationship as the contributor of half the genetic material of the child and will be part of the cosmic reality of that child and of the relationship, however you may wish to reconstruct reality.
I am yet to view the programme.
Corita says:
“I think what John means is that hetero marriages are marriages of male and female, which are sexually complementary, and can produce life. That is pretty significant; biology is a fact”
Except that IN FACT post menopausal women cannot conceive. Except that IN FACT most heterosexual activity will not lead to children as women are only spasmodically capable of conception. Except the IN FACT sex has always involved more sexual activity than is necessary for the reproduction of the species – as a higher order species sex is an essential part of our bonding with others. It it’s the Church that ignores these biological facts and clings on a moral code in an evidential vacuum. That is why her view holds no sway on public policy making in this area in most countries.
And of course the BIGGEST biological fact she ignores is the constant expression of homosexuality throughout time, culture, ethnic and racial groups at by and large a constant rate of incidence irrespective of whatever prevailing social cultural religious or legal sanction against it. God seems pretty determined to keep minting fresh homosexuals whatever we do and those homosexuals pretty much do the same thing sexually.
“Also, the idea that society's laws would be made based on an idea(l) of what is best for the whole of society”
This is a very dubious basis for law making and is actually a utilitarian argument the sort the commies use. Essentially you use this argument to “take and control” another persons sexuality a sort of “women are the womb of the State and men are the penis in the service of the nation”. It is very very dangerous way of reasoning. I believe the law should maximising the freedom of individuals (and therefore control of their body and its extension: their property) consistent with the freedom of others. I would never agree that your life, reproductive potential or property should be taken in order to serve the “good of society” even if one could demonstrate the net gain. Surely as an upholder of the dignity of every individual human you can see this.
Of course the fact remains that those who oppose gay marriage/civil unions cannot offer any such evidence of harm to society indeed evidence suggests that where the legal treatment of homosexuality neutral those societies tend to be better.
So Dread what exactly is the difference between your view of marriage and your view of civil unions (limited) that you say you support? What rights would marriage have that civil unions would not?
How do people find this interesting?
[...comments deleted because they were slanderous...really, you people don't know me from the next guy, so quit attacking whatever imaginary John Heard you'd like to hit and put forward some serious arguments] - DN
Edited By Siteowner
"...This is a very dubious basis for law making and is actually a utilitarian argument the sort the commies use. "
No. It is the idea that underpins the US Constitution, the EU charter, the Australian Constitution and the British system. It is not utilitarian, it is called the common good.
Merely 'maximising personal freedom' as a political creed = anarchy. You know this Atiyah. My freedom must, at some point, conflict with yours. Hence, the idea of the common good.
Who says menopausal woman cannot conceive? Who said marriage was merely about procreation? It is about both sexual AND affective complementarity: the biological + the emotional. This is why the Catholic position is so appealing and it's also why, despite your claims, these ideas continue to be the msot influential in relation to marriage across the globe. They make sense, even without religion.
I don't have to describe marriage and the rights it needs: most of us know what marriage is. It should be encouraged with tax breaks and other incentives. It should be celebrated because of the benefits society as a whole derives from it.
Limited civil unions would mean the erasure of unfair discrimination in relation to superannuation, hospital visitation rights, private property etc. Most of these things, however, are already fixed under state and federal laws and the rest can be enshrined in private contract.
Two men who have been together for 30 years are so much more than mere fishing buddies, but they're not a family.
Saying as much isn't rude or arrogant, it is honest. We must look for ways to encourage such devotion, without ape-ing marriage or subverting the family.
And we have an example right here of your tendency to misrepresent yourself for the expediency of a better appearance:
JENNY BROCKIE: John, I'm interested in the position you're taking on this. Because you're gay, yes?
JOHN HEARD: I am, absolutely.
Yet you usually refer to yourself as 'gay' in quotes. Are you 'absolutely' gay as per the general understanding or some special kind? Some of your commenters seem to think your celibate or something? haha
I am same sex attracted Bored/Ben Coleman, but I am not 'gay' if such a thing means I am an anti-Catholic, Stonewall-derived, self-absorbed Mardi-Gras goer.
I think you'll find most SSA guys would prefer not to be indentified with such an ignoable 'community'.
Ben, we met each other twice in the real world, but we are not friends. I would ask you to refrain from pretending you know me or anything about my education/job/personal life. This is your final warning.
Really people, doesn't anyone have a pro 'gay marriage' argument that doesn't run, 'John Heard is a prat, whatever he says must be wrong?'
I was the anonymous poster - didn't retype my name, etc by mistake, not, DN as some form of omission.
DN - I find myself yet again bored to tears with your rhetoric and I am reminded why I made a decision not to visit your site in the first place. I will exit stage left once again.
Marie-louise
"Parents are male and female - one of each. No same sex couple can create another human life without the introduction of genetic material from someone of the opposite sex. 'Donor' will therefore become part of that reality - a triad, not a couple, however you wish to define it. "
So, you don't support infertile straight couples accessing donor sperm or eggs either? Because under your definition, only one of the couple would be the parent.
That's a shame Kelly, I'm still waiting for a meaty argument from you or the ACE...
Indeed, I am generally disappointed with this entire thread. We've heard the same assertions over and over again from the same, self-interested parties. Most of my interlocutors are either homoactivists, radical feminists, socialists or anachists. Most Australians and Americans are most definitely not those things.
I am yet to receive an email/comment from anyone who was convinced by the show that 'gay marriage' is a good thing.
No wonder, most of these comments represent a whole lot of hot air and untested assumptions. If I were an ordinary Australian or American, I would have switched the nightmare off too!
You choose to take this quote from my blog title out of context. I write..
"...I figure the more queer femme dykes trying to conceive whilst attempting to subvert the dominant gender stereotypes and promote feminism in a patriarchal society who write about it - THE BETTER'
You write...
"If that is your reason for access to children, if such a divisive idea of human society is the basis of your support for 'gay marriage', why on earth would a serious person (let alone a reasonable politician or a man!) support your claims?"
I stated that the more women who WRITE about this path the better. I did not say that the more women who TAKE this path the better. There are many other women who are on the same life path as myself and I enjoy the community of writers documenting this, as I'm sure you enjoy some sort of community of conservative gay catholics who write.
I don't believe I have a divisive view of human society. I look forward to the day when gender stereotypes and sexuality are a non-issue and people can see each other as human beings rather than a hard set of behavioural parameters, but it's going to take some work to get there. After all these years, we still tell boy children to "be a man" when they cry - how is this stereotyping and promoting of "bloke-dom" helpful to men? So far it's given us one of the highest male youth suicide rates in the world.
You have not addressed the issue of infertile couples, or of straight couples who are married, but choose not to have children. Why should those people be allowed to marry but not gays? You argue that gay people can only bring children into this world in an "Unnatural" fashion, but what about heterosexuals who use the same "unnatural" methods to produce children? Should they face discrimination also? Should it be that if one of those parents die, the other parent has no immediate custodianship of their child?
I can give you the reasons that I agree with gay marriage. A small part of it is definitely legal reasons, which I agree can be dealt with by non-marriage same sex unions. My partner is from a catholic family. They are now supportive of our relationship, after many years of disapproving of their daughters homosexuality. They have over time seen that we are a stable couple who contribute to society. They are looking forward to welcoming their first grandchild. Their only remaining concern for their daughters well-being and welfare is that they would dearly love for her to be able to get married, the same way that they would prefer their heterosexual daughter who is in a relationship to get married also. To them this validates and legitimises a relationship. Since we also would like to get married - to pledge to be with each other not only in the good times, but also through times of illness and difficulty, why should her family suffer from this ban? You say that you wish to promote catholic families and support them, but not all catholic families fee
"...dykes trying to conceive..."
Actually means dykes writing about trying to conceive? Huh?
Ha ha! @ the community of conservative gay Catholics - I'm afraid if they exist, I don't know about them
Straight couples who are married and contracept their children are dealt with in this post:
http://johnheard.blogspot.com/20...ception-
is.html
"To them this validates and legitimises a relationship...we also would like to get married - to pledge to be with each other not only in the good times, but also through times of illness and difficulty"
What is stopping you? You can do all of these things right now. What you mean, however, is that you (and perhaps the parents) want State recognition. Some people want the same benefits as those that attach to families. I'd like to know why you think this is so important?
I really appreciate your contribution Anon (I think you must be the 'femme dyke' from above). Thank you for your civility and honesty!
Ok one more,
" It would be good to hear from married couples and parents. Believe it or not, straight people have far more insight into and experience of these matters than single, banner-waving activists from Darlinghurst. Why is marriage important? What is best for children? "
John, you are the banner waving freak, can't you even see that?
Certainly on last night's program and even in this discussion board everyone else seems to be liek a normal person. They dress normally, they speak normally, they are happy with their lvies and their partners. Most of those gay couples last night probably live in suburban houses and lead reasonably normal lives.
I saw the other guests on that program repeatedly trying to explain to you what it is like to love someone and be a part of a family - because you clearly have no understanding. But you wouldn't listen.
I almost can't believe your hypocrisy on that one!
And then this:
"It would also be good to hear homoactivists actually tell us why SSA men and women should be allowed to marry without resorting to arguments about empty equality."
John, have you ever known a boy and girl who have been dating for a long period? I bet you and others ask them: "So, when are you guys getting married already?" They might not want to, or they might be just waiting.
Well people ask long term gay couples the same thing. My partner's sisters refer to me as their brother-in-law, but I'm not am I? And if one of them has a son he will be my partner's nephew, but no relation to me. These things seem small, but the same boy will be the nephew of another sister's husband even though the relationship between that man and the boy and me and the boy is really the same.
Yes it is an equality issue because the rest of the family will consider me a family member at a practical level, but know I am not at a legal level. Some say this doesn't matter. It is a small issue, that's why there are no street marches and protests. But ultimately, people respect the law and their respect for a relationship not legally sanctioned in the way straight ones are is diminished.
Simply, the current postion is confusing. Homosexuality is legal but the homosexual relationships are not recognised. inf act gay relationships are explicitly delegitimised by none other than the Prime Minister. What does the average Australian take away from this? What is the PM trying to imply? He is famous for giving crude and bigoted messages through seemingly legitimate actions. (eg. the racist element in "border control")
If we delay in extending full relationship recognition to gay people, we will surely begin a backward slide toward re-criminalisation of homosexual acts. If only little by little: Helen Connan censoring TV stations anyone?
I don't think most Australians are in favour of re-criminalisation and I actaully think many Australians would be surprised to know that there is no "marriage equivalent" for
Oh, this is like watching the screamfest next door - you want to walk away but the level of self-deception is grotesquely compelling. What makes you say you are the arbiter of what's 'normal'? Laws were passed in the UK and those so called 'ordinary' citizens didn't take to the streets. The world didn't stop.
By the way, you didn't address the substance of the research cited above. You simply dismissed the source (as I predicted you would), and implied I was either a 'homoactivist, radical feminist, socialist or anachist' (and therefore, somehow, able to be immediately dismissed). You don't engage with what people are saying. That's only possible in this little blog-castle, as the SBS Insight program revealed.
"Some people want to drive while drunk. That we don't let them is not a sign of unjust discrimination, it is an act of compassion. Don't you agree?
If we know that 'gay marriage' warps the natural order and blocks man's access to true love and flourishing, opposing it is also a compassionate act, no?"
Firstly, we don't "know" anything of the sort. You're confusing opinion with fact. But more importantly, I fundamentally reject the basis of your comparison. Are you really comparing the decision of a loving, committed couple to obtain public recognition of their relationship beyond a mere 'private contract' (as in 'I contracted the plumber to fix the loo') with the decision of a drunk person to drive a car, endangering their life and the lives of others? Really?
Bored/Ben Coleman, I just don't believe the legal recognition you're after is worth the disruption to the family that such a fundamental change entails.
I'm sure your family won't check your marriage licence before giving you a hug mate.
With respect, the guests were hardly ordinary Australians, their views are not shared by the rest of the nation and indeed most of the comments here, as I've said, come from homoactivists, radical feminists, socialists and anarchists: none of whom represent the mainstream.
I've spent a very long time repsonding to each one, nonetheless. This is surely proof of my willingness to enter into open debate, as is my acceptance of the SBS invite in the first place.
Georgina, the substance is mediated by the source. The Apple Growers Assoc will release surveys that say kids should eat more apples. No wonder!
There are many ways to harm another person. You can drive a car into them, or you can negatively impact their flourishing.
O my Lord, John!
you must be a total non-human being and worthy of the pity of people whose only goal in life is to get a fuck, to be told:
I pity you. The self loathing must keep you up at night. Because i bet its not hot man sex that is.
Gosh! How do you even live without "hot man sex"
LOL!!!
What I actually meant to say was that post menopausal women cannot conceive – the point trumpets loudly and is ignored: sex within marriage involving a postmenopausal woman is not illicit and is certainly not open to procreation thus one of your necessary conditions is not present. But of course these conditions have never been required for civil marriage laws anyway.
The US constitution is a liberal (used in the correct sense of the word) charter for a republic and as such is not founded on the common good but rather on the novel notion of individual liberty and sovereignty derived there from. It is interesting you should cite it as of course the Catholic Church officially suspended judgement on this experiment in a liberal republic and initially set herself against liberalism - you still hear notes of that in some of her language. Thus in liberal charters the common good flows from the recognition of individual rights rather than collectivised ones.
The fact that the UN (according to you Abortionist funded)is based on the interests of nation states might explain why it has done so little – often the interests of a government and the citizen is not synonymous that is why liberals favour limited government surely this is coals to Newcastle stuff Dread.
Your difference between marriage and civil unions is cigarette paper thin. Whatever else you think marriage is - this isn’t derived from the law.
So you are comparing the decision of a loving, committed couple to obtain public recognition of their relationship beyond a mere 'private contract' (as in 'I contracted the plumber to fix the loo') with the decision of a drunk person to drive a car, endangering their life and the lives of others. Totally on par. Just wanted to make sure we've cleared that up.
You keep on thinking you're worthy of debate, doesn't the church teach you to be humble?
Mikey, you're really good at ad hominem attacks , but what you said here just doesn't make sense.
Why does John lack humility because he wishes to use his intelligence to have a proper debate about this issue?
Why are you so sure John is unworthy of a proper debate? Is it because you lack proper arguments?
"That's a shame Kelly, I'm still waiting for a meaty argument from you or the ACE..."
That's funny, I feel the same way about you. I'm still waiting for an argument against gay marriage that doesn't nest itself in religious dogma and hysteria.
One thing you should perhaps have learnt from last night is that it's good for you to shut your trap for once and listen. A lesson for you, John?
"That's a shame Kelly, I'm still waiting for a meaty argument from you or the ACE..."
That's funny, I feel the same way about you. I'm still waiting for an argument against gay marriage that doesn't nest itself in religious dogma and hysteria.
One thing you should perhaps have learnt from last night is that it's good for you to shut your trap for once and listen. A lesson for you, John?
"...and is certainly not open to procreation"
Again, who says? One doesn't have to guarantee that one will conceive, merely leave the sexual act open to the gift of life. Catholicism isn't deterministic, motives are important.
You are wrong in re: the US Constitution. Check out Lloyd Weinreb on this. It is a liberal expression of a natural law idea. Locke was, after all, very concerned with the common good and the demands of practical reason. But again, how is this a case for why men should 'marry' each other?
I wouldn't say totally on par, Georgina, but there is the same elements of perhaps unwitting damage inflicted on another.
I know Louise, apparently the 'gay community' is a sex-cult or something. This claim comes from homoactivists and their supporters, who, in the very next breath, ask the State to give them children.
Oh, without a doubt I should shut my trap a bit more Kelly. But the SBS program leant itself to shouting and I played my part. I really did speak for the millions of men and women who know that most of the arguments stated as fact are at best contentious if not totally deleterious to the family.
"Again, who says? One doesn't have to guarantee that one will conceive, merely leave the sexual act open to the gift of life. Catholicism isn't deterministic, motives are important. "
You didn't answer this point I made before, so I'll make it again given you're comment above.
Friends of ours have recently got married. They don't want children. Prior to getting married, he had a vasectomy to ensure there would be no children.
Tell me, John, how is their sex life open to procreation? Should they be allowed to marry?
You say there is unwitting damage. Provide the evidence that this is so. It's really that simple.
The experience in the UK seems to indicate that it is not so. Seeing as you are so fond of citing studies, these peer reviewed journals and book long studies also say it is not so:
•Child Development
•Journal of Child Psychology, and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines
•Journal of Lesbian Studies
•Developmental Psychology
•Gender and Society
•Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services
•Gender and Society
•Ellen Lewin, Lesbian Mothers: Accounts of Gender in American Culture, Cornell UP, Ithaca, 1993.
•Fiona Nelson, Lesbian Motherhood: An Exploration of Canadian Lesbian Families, U of T Press, Toronto, 1996.
•American Psychologist
•American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
•Journal of Social Issues
This was a simple cut and paste job of the bibliography of the literature review I cited. Are all these journals, and the academics that write for them wrong? And why should we think so? Because you say so?
If lesbian families can provide a loving and nurturing family (which these studies show they can) where is the "damage" you speak of?
I tried to answer it Kelly, at length, but it's at this post on contraception:
http://johnheard.blogspot.com/20...ception-
is.html
Their sex life is not open to procreation. It is unclear whether or not their marriage would be considered valid in Canon law.
However, a vasectomy can be reversed. What operation will make anal or digital sex productive of new life?
They could very well be wrong Georgina, I don't know most of those researchers and I am unfamiliar with their work. It would be rash to approve of them without examining them.
However, I am not a social researcher, I don't have to trawl through obscure surveys compiled for random lobby groups. If there were overwhelming evidence to support 'gay marriage', sure signs that it was good for SSA men and good for society, we wouldn't be having this debate.
The very lack of credible evidence demonstrates why we should not gamble with childrens' lives or indeed with the details of our own lives. None of us is a sociologist or psychologist: I only brought up the survey to counter the claim that SSA men and women want 'gay marriage'. They don't.
A lesbian family cannot provide a father. Fathers are important. Not having a father is generally a bad thing. There is your damage.
I am in favour of civil unions but at this point, not same-sex marriage (but I am open to persuasion)
Most (virtually all) people on here are not addressing the issues but it also seems that we are talking on two different levels. One one is the philosophical argument "What about the children?", "It's not natural!" rarara. The other is the practical "What happens when my partner has serious medical complications and the hospital says I'm not allowed to make any decisions on their behalf?", "My kids are being teased at school about having two dads?" etc. (I think the ACT Lib minister on the show found it very difficult to answer these practical questions, you perhaps less so.) My impression is that you're more inclined to ponder the former while most on here are more interested in the latter (I'd include myself in that).
Anyway, finally this tidbit which I think addresses your views on the issue in a 'practical' sense:
I just don't believe the legal recognition you're after is worth the disruption to the family that such a fundamental change entails.
How specifically is the family disrupted? I'm sure you're up on the research done in Europe etc where gay marriage (or something very similar) has been legal for some time. It is a cliche but it seems no.. the sky has not fallen in.. What evidence is there that families have been disrupted?
And the reason I don't include my email address is because I'm soooo sick of spam..
I think you just answered my question in your previous comment "There is your damage.."
And yeah.. I tend to agree with you *sigh*
hehe
Oh come now, when you think a study backs you up you rely on it no end, but when a whole list of them put your arguments in a questionable light what's your conclusion? "They could very well be wrong". That's pretty pissweak. They could also very well be right. You haven't provided evidence that no male parent = damage. If that were so why do we not penalise single parent families?
*stops, looks around for the "millions of men and women" who think exactly as John Heard does. Sees only people mounting arguments against his position, backed up with evidence. Even here in a space dedicated to that very position. Shrugs. Leaves*
I'm off to cook dinner for my divorced father and his new (second) wife who are both happy, both lovely and both married in the Catholic Church. And I'm not going think what they did (and the happiness and mutual support it provided) was such a bad thing. And I'm not going to think that what they have in their pants determines whether their relationship is "damaging" or not.
Hey Matt,
You have me half right, although the practical issues can be worked out privately. I don't think anything will stop kids getting teased though: unfortunately.
Calling something a family when it isn't one and according that arrangement the rights that families deserve means that - in a world of finite resources - the family must suffer. There is not as much to go around. For this reason we don't treat married singles the same as we treated married couples with families (i.e., in tax law, etc.).
In a less practical sense, it is an injustice - inter alia - because it ignores the facts about a person and his/her sexuality and tries to mimic marriage.
In this way, 'gay marriage' is bad for society (and the family) and bad bad for SSA men and women.
Mikey, Kelly et al
Your viciousness speaks for you so eloquently.
Marriage exists primarily for social reasons, not the feel-good happy-happy emotions of whoever is in Lerv. Catholics also believe that Jesus Christ elevated marriage to a Sacrament, which is a help to married Catholics.
The sex organs are members of the reproductive system, meaning that biologically, they are for the purpose of reproduction. I refer you to any medical textbook.
When we speak about the rights associated with marriage, we need to consider the rights of the child that results from sexual intercourse.
The child has a natural right to know her mother and father and to be loved by them. She also has the right to know that her parents are in a committed, loving relationship with each other. If the parents are divorced/separated, the love the child has towards each parent can become a source of conflict for the child.
Traditionally, marriage has been to protect the child and promote her happiness.
Two women or two men cannot make a baby together. Any child of their “marriage” is not their child at all.
Why is this so hard to understand?
No-one has the right to marry, but those who are able to provide for any children they may have. (Natural infertility is not a bar to marriage).
Kelly et al, please address John’s arguments and stop resorting to disgusting insults. They beggar belief.
John, it is abundantly clear from their hateful attacks, that your opponents do not have the High Moral Ground.
If they're right Georgina, tell me why? I'm not going to argue your case for you girl.
As above, we do penalise single parent families. Ask a single parent!
The details of your family life are not my business Georgina. Have a wonderful dinner!
I'm sure you'd agree, Louise, that a child raised by loving parents does indeed belong to those parents, no matter how irregular the arrangement. I think we need to be careful when arguing purely from biology. I do not claim that some 'gay' parents cannot be great parents. They do not need 'gay marriage'.
However, I adopt the rest of what Louise says about the source and purpose of marriage.
I take your point, John, but at the *beginning* of the process, the parents cannot conceive a child together, so it seems strange for two women to say, "we are trying to have a baby" when that's not really the case. In lovingly raising a child together, any two people can be the object of the child's love.
Just to clarify, I'm certainly not suggesting that gays and lesbians can't be good parents, and I'm also not arguing that all hetero couples make good parents.
I am trying to argue from the rights of the child. They are the most important here. And a child has the right to a mother and father who love each other.
“Again, who says? One doesn't have to guarantee that one will conceive, merely leave the sexual act open to the gift of life. Catholicism isn't deterministic, motives are important”
Awwwww you are lost here mate. Post menopausal women cannot naturally conceive - BIOLOGICAL fact whatever their motives are it makes not a jot of difference.
Dread on US Constitution : “It is a liberal expression of a natural law idea”
Thus you concede my point. You are correct it is a LIBERAL expression but that is not to say that liberalism shares the Catholic view of “common good.” In the context of sexuality it actually only means an objective notion of sexuality divorced from the nature of an individual’s sexuality in fact. Thus making homosexual conduct illicit can result in greater harm than good because that is in the common good i.e. in accord with a objective understanding of sexuality. This objective standard is supposed to come from God (discernable via plumbing and scriptural references) which sorta sends us circular as why he keeps on turning em out.
Of course Dread knows that no liberal would support a legal code interfering with the sexual behaviour of consenting adults on the basis of “common good” or any other rationale. Most liberals would probably favour the State exiting the marriage business altogether and certainly would not support incentivising marriage over any other particular arrangement – these choices are to be left to individuals.
Thus the starting point of liberalism is that what is good for free individuals is good for society and that Governments only exercises those powers ceded to them by individuals and cannot do anything more that a individual can do.
The starting point of the Catholic “common good” is that heterosexual marriage is good for society and is therefore good for individuals irrespective of their individual inclinations.
As Dread should know most liberals would not recognise the interests of “society” (Margaret Thatcher famously observed that there was no such thing as “society’) but rather only the interests of individuals and their immediate families.
Other liberals might concede the value of the legal institution of marriage but wouldn’t have a problem with gay marriage or the provision of a similar civil union regime which is open to homosexual or heterosexual partners.
I'm a little more humble about listening to the views of the wider community than either you or Lloyd. We do live in a democracy
LOL. The man who thinks he is more humble than others is probably not
John, we have never met and we are not friends. Please practice what you preach. I would ask you to refrain from pretending you know me or anything about my attitudes towards the views of others.
Brendan, I have answered your questions repeatedly and at length.
No, John, you have not. I've made 2 substantive postings (and 2 shorter comments) on here. You've commented briefly, fobbed me off to the effect of 'Already answered that', and ultimately failed to substantively address the core issues.
Your summary arguments seem to be that same-sex couples don't want/need/deserve marriage; and that heterosexual marriage, traditional families and children would somehow be undermined by same-sex marriage. These are implictly interwoven with the quaint cliche that homosexuality itself warps the "natural order". None of these flimsy claims withstand rigorous valid criticism nor diminish the strong case for legalised same-sex marriage. Yet you re-iterate them ad nauseaum, as if mere repetition were a substantive reply. It isn't, as has been noted at length.
Instead of addressing the issues (such as explaining exactly HOW populism justifies the current unfairness, exactly WHY marriage implicitly requires procreative potential when the legal & social reality is not so black and white, and exactly WHY the quaint notion of "natural order" should have any bearing on the marriage rights of consenting adults in a secular society?), you label those who disagree with you as "Darlinghurst homoactivists", "anti-Catholic, Stonewall-derived, self-absorbed Mardi-Gras goers", "radical feminists", "socialists", "anarchists", and therefore irrelevant. Even the Family Court is dismissed as irrelevant to the majority view of marriage, despite the pertinent judgements they've made on that issue.
When will you get back to robust debate about the serious issues that you allegedly so ardently desire? Why do you expect others to refrain from "silly name-calling" & "crude slurs" at your request, when you do not?
You claim my responses are not rational, but that's because you irrationally reject the gains of philosophy and are bigoted towards Catholic teaching. That doesn't mean I'm being evasive, it means you're being biased.
Your responses are not rational because they fail to withstand rigorous valid criticism. We're all biased, John. That's what having a point of view entails. The important question is, whose bias seeks to preserve entrenched restrictions on the righteous freedoms of others? Yours. Is that reasonable, just & fair? No. Blocking the right of same-sex couple to marry on the grounds that you personally don't recognise their love as deserving of it, is not an act of "compassion", it's sadistic.
I'm a 21 year old Australian and I'm straight. Before anyone accuses me of being so, I am not homophobic, I have gay friends and I respect their lifestyle choices. I'd just like to state my own opinion on this issue after watching the theatrical fiasco of last night's Insight!
I have nothing against a civil union for gays and lesbians, in fact I think it would be a good idea, simply for the fact that it's practical to have next-of-kin status in case something happens to one partner. That is one right that I believe is deserved in any long-term relationship, regardless whether heterosexual or homosexual.
However, I don't agree with gay marriage. What is the difference between civil union and marriage? In my view, marriage is linked to family.
It's true that we're living in an age where families are breaking down, lots of children are being raised by single parents and the ideal of both a mother and a father together doesn't always happen. I'm sure that children in these situations are not less loved than those who are raised in same-sex relationships. As long as a child is wanted by somebody, regardless of that person's gender, there is usually love and stability.
However... same-sex couples cannot naturally have children. It is simple as that. They can scream, they can cry, they can pray for a miracle, but it is biologically *impossible*. That is a fact that cannot be denied. Two men or two women cannot combine their genetic material to make a child. They must resort to other means.
It is this "other means" that is a problem. I am not saying that a homosexual couple doesn't have the love and ability to raise a child. That's not in question. What *is* in question is whether they have the right to bring a child into this world, to *create* a child for the sake of having a family and feeling fulfilled. (BTW, this issue isn't just restricted to same-sex couples, but to infertile couples, single parents... anyone who wishes to use IVF and donor material.)
I guess what I'm saying is...
Every child has a *mother* and a *father*. I'm not talking about birth parents here, but *biological* parents. No birth certificate re-written with "Parent A" and "Parent B" could ever change that. When a child is created naturally, there is a bond between his/her parents. There has to be, for that sexual union to have taken place. Even children whose parents are divorced, or who have been adopted can still understand that at one time there was at least a *connection* between their mother and father.
With a donor, there is no connection. It is a silent parent, a stranger, an absentee. There is no relationship to the other half of the genetic mix. In fact, "Parent A" and "Parent B" may never have met each other.
It is sterile, clinical and it is this... "method" of reproduction that truly disturbs me.
When I look in the mirror, I see my mother's face and my father's face combined in mine. I can look at fami
... continued
When I look in the mirror, I see my mother's face and my father's face combined in mine. I can look at family photos from my paternal side and see that my great-grandfather, my grandfather, my father and myself have the same jaw and smile. I look at my mother's family photos and I can see that all her siblings, my cousins and myself have inherited the same dimples from my maternal grandmother. There is a lineage there, a link to my ancestors, even to the generation after me. I know *who* makes up my blood, and what traits I will most likely pass on to my own children. These could be physical traits, medical conditions, or even talents like having artistic ability or being a good runner.
Most adopted children are happy and loved by their new families. They seem adjusted, settled... but then why at some point in their adult lives do they go looking for their biological parents? Why do some adopted children go to such extreme measures, searching for years if not decades, flying half-way across the world... just to meet their mother or father? There is a yearning, a need to know *why* and *how* they came to existence.
In the case of IVF children created with donor eggs or sperm, finding the other half is a lot more complicated. To be honest, I find it somewhat cruel. There is no story how they came into being other than "As your mother/father, I was selected from a registry." The child learns that he/she may have dozens of other half-siblings in the world. I don't know if it's just me, but I find that an extremely painful thing to find out. It's such a sterile and robotic way of reproduction. The child may have been raised with love but was not *created* with love.
What is a child but the combination of two people, united forever in the form of a human being? And not just any people, but a *man* and a *woman*. A mother and a father who know each other, who love each other, who created a new human being in this world through their relationship to one another. A child of their own flesh, their own blood, who can later look in the mirror and see himself/herself as the evidence of the *bond* between his/her parents. For a same-sex couple to combine the essence of two random people with no connection to each other, create life and then expect that child to not care about his/her parentage... I believe that regardless of their good intentions, it is experimentation.
Long story short, this is why I oppose IVF using donor material. And seeing as this is the only way homosexuals can have children other than adoption, this is why I oppose gay marriage. I can agree with a civil union where the gay couple is granted the same legal status of a heterosexual couple. However, the title of "marriage" is completely different and cannot be applied the same way. Marriage as a sacrament involves *companionship* and *procreation*. Homosexuals can fulfill the first condition. They cannot fulfill the second. It is only logic. These
... continued
It is only logic. These rules cannot be changed.
"Marriage" should be reserved for heterosexual couples who wish to create a family, because they are suited by *nature* to create children, they don’t have to use genetic material from outside their relationship.
To sum up my opinion on this whole issue of gay marriage:
"Civil union" for homosexual couples who want their relationship legally recognized in society, companionship without procreation : Yes
"Marriage" for homosexual couples who want their relationship legally recognized in society, companionship with procreation: No
I'm sorry if I offend anyone with what I have written, but just as any of you have the right to state your opinion, I also have the right to express my own.
Regardless of what people say, I'd like to say bravo John for stating what you believe to be right. I agree with you.
- Maria (from Perth)
P.S. sorry for taking up so much room, my post ended up a lot longer than originally intended!
Wow, what a breath of fresh air. Thanks, Maria. It was really nice to read the opinion of someone willing to just honestly and humbly state - this is what I believe - you can take it or leave it but it's what I believe. Not dressing it up as 'fact' or the only way to see things or putting down those that see things differently. Nice. John should be taking notes
I was going to bustle in with a rebuttal of DN's usual condescending dismissal of my (different, but none the less worthwhile) opinion but this has given me pause.
Maybe I'll do that next post.
Maria
What about known donors/dads? That are involved in the child's life from the beginning?
Many lesbians elect to have a known donor and nothing is hidden from the child (myself included).
Yes Louise, okay then. Thanks for clarifying
I don't know Atiyah, your view of liberalism is a little strange. I think the critical legal theorists would object to your notions of the personal and the public, especially with regard to sex. Certainly your view of natural law seems stuck at Hume and the 'naturalistic fallacy'.
Brendan, "None of these flimsy claims withstand rigorous valid criticism nor diminish the strong case for legalised same-sex marriage." So criticise. Make the case for 'gay marriage'. You have done neither so far, yet half my site is devoted to arguments against 'gay marriage', etc. I don't think anyone would claim that my position is unclear man.
I do not accept your relativism. Nor your consequentialism. Some things are good per se, and there is an objective truth. Saying there isn't is itself a statement of supposed objective truth.
Maria, I went to see a film and came back to your humane, articulate, moving comments. You magnificent creature! Next time SBS call I will send you instead
Needless to say, I adopt and reiterate Maria's comments. I'd adopt Maria (if I agreed with that sort of thing...)
Thank you all, too, for keeping it civil.
Id like to (respectfully) engage with some of the ideas Maria raised in her post. You say that:
“For a same-sex couple to combine the essence of two random people with no connection to each other, create life and then expect that child to not care about his/her parentage... I believe that regardless of their good intentions, it is experimentation.”
This is not the reality of many gay and lesbian families, as Kelly states. It’s often not “two random people”. Many lesbian couples put a great deal of consideration into the choice of the donor father. And in many cases donor fathers maintain a relationship with the child, providing a male figure (as brothers, uncles, friends also provide male figures) in the child’s life. They certainly don’t expect that the child will not care about his/her parentage. Families of this kind have been in existance for decades. It’s unfair to call them experiments and unjust to call them less than families. I believe that, in the most part, these are wanted and loved children, not “experiments”.
You seem to be arguing not against gay marriage, but against gay marriage as an entry point to accessing fertility treatments or other ‘non-natural’ means of reproduction. Things get murky when arguing what’s ‘natural’ or not and even whether ‘natural=good’. We’d be in the state of nature, blipping each other on the head at every turn if ‘nature’ was the ultimate arbiter of how society should be organised. But, legally, procreation is beside the point. There is no stipulation on procreation within heterosexual marriage laws, as many have pointed out. So the dichotomy you set up is a false one:
" 'Civil union' for homosexual couples who want their relationship legally recognized in society, companionship without procreation : Yes
'Marriage' for homosexual couples who want their relationship legally recognized in society, companionship with procreation: No"
Gay and lesbian couples already have families, through a variety of means. So if you agree on the legal recognition part, I’d say we’re more or less on the same page.
Now my (since toned down) rebuttal of your condescending brush-off, DN...
First you accuse me of arguing the person (when have I done that?) then you accuse me of not making my own arguments. I was making my own arguments, John. Don't be so patronising, it's unnecessary and hurtful. I was arguing that if the research seems to indicate that the sex of a parent has no correlation with "damage" suffered by the children, then there's no reason the state shouldn't afford those families with equal recognition and rights. You haven't provided any counter evidence to lead me to reject that research. And that recognition does require more than a mere 'contract' such as might be arranged between business partners. Even Maria is arguing for more (legislated civil unions) than you are willing to commit to.
Fine, don't call it a "marriage". You're right - most gay and lesbian people wouldn't care. But provide public, legislated recognition that establishes the same degree of rights and responsibilities within gay and lesbian relationships if they so choose. You've yet to show how this would be such a "damaging" thing.
"You're right - most gay and lesbian people wouldn't care" Hoorah! We agree Georgina.
I have responded directly to that question, but I directed the answer to Matt:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...2979714/
#124197
I'm sorry. I'm sorry too if I was patronising and/or hurtful. Please see my robust rhetoric as a sign of my dedication and engagement with your arguments. If I were truly arrogant, I'd pay no attention.
To be honest Georgina, I'm not a social researcher, a sociologist or a psychologist. I said this above too. My argument is from reason and the facts of human sexuality. I used the 'Private Lives Report' to counter claims that I am isolated in my views. We both agree that this is not the case.
I've never said SSA people can't be good parents, rather that they're not natural or ideal parents. This sounds harsh, but we know it is true, nature demonstrates as much. A child doesn't need a report to tell him that he misses or needs his daddy. We don't need opinion polls to demonstrate that replacing a father with a 'donor' is probably not such a loving idea.
Dread, we truly love our donor - our future child's father. Our child will have and know its "daddy" and our child will see and experience the love we have for him.
How is this not loving?
John wrote:
I've never said SSA people can't be good parents, rather that they're not natural or ideal parents.
Keeping in mind that "natural" does not equate to "good" and that "ideal" is your subjective view (not an objective truth), that is still no reason to deny same-sex couples the right to lawful marriage.
John wrote :
Make the case for 'gay marriage'.
After your blithe dismissal of the valid criticisms of your "case" against same-sex marriage, there hardly seems any point. If we can't have a substantive debate about the gross flaws in your No case, me "making the case for gay marriage" is unlikely to achieve much here. However, the masochist in me nonetheless says "Do, Let's".
Let me start by observing that, for me, it's a matter of personal liberty. The Government dictating what the gender of my adult life partner must NOT be is a gross imposition upon what might otherwise be my fair and reasonable choice. This is unjust. Even more so when "rationalised" by the lie that committed same-sex relationships are inferior, not serious and unworthy of equal protection by the law.
Like laws that once forbade interracial marriage or denied indigenous Aussies the right to vote, restricting marriage to heterosexuals benefits none and harms many. It creates adverse legal outcomes for same-sex couples and any children they may parent. (Incidentally, blaming the "selfishness" of the same-sex couple for making a "bad choice" is not a constructive response when clearly the harm is caused by the unjustifiable discrimination currently enshrined in law).
In real life, far from the contrived "ideal" of conservative imagination, same-sex couples from all walks of life can and do form enduring committed relationships. There are those who in many ways already live up to the responsibilities of marriage; they are no less deserving of its rights. Enabling the choice of same-sex marriage under the law would set a positive example and further encourage commitment, thus fostering respect and responsibility for and amongst same-sex couples, resulting in a happier and healthier society longer term. Far from threatening the sanctity of families and marriage, the more couples (including the same-sex variety) subscribing to the authentic values of marriage – mutual commitment, trust and love – the stronger the institution itself will become.
I do not accept your relativism. Nor your consequentialism.
A convenient way of saying "I disagree with your arguments & refuse to acknowledge them". Is that what you meant when you previously referred to taking on your opponents on their own turf? Two can play that game. I reject your absolutism and the misnomer of "objective truth" that you apply to your own arguments. In rejecting what you characterise as my consequentialism, what alternative do you propose? Realising that, regardless of your answer, it still doesn't bring us any closer to a substantive, relevant, practical explanation of WHY same-sex marriage should remain unlawful.
Of course you describe a loving situation Kelly. I am not against love, I am against 'gay marriage'.
Thank you for interacting with me Brendan!
"ideal" is your subjective view (not an objective truth)"
If it's not an objective truth, it must be one of the best candidate. The family exists, is celebrated and encouraged in almsot every culture anywhere on earth. Our genes, hearts, developmental needs etc., serve and are served by it.
If anything is a good reason to discriminate, such fundamental facts about the human person are surely amongst them.
Personal liberty is best served by private arrangements. This is the great lesson (and gift) of Atiyah's liberalism. The government doesn't tell you who you can be with at all.
Marriage benefits the individuals involved, society, the children raised and Catholics believe, as a sacrament, it also strengthens the partners in love for each other.
Family is not a conservative idea at all. It is so basic is transcends politics. Hence the bipartisan support for it here and elsewhere.
Of course, Brendan, I know that same sex relationships can be enduring, committed (and monogamous - an attribute none of you have discussed), I know this at a personal and a theoretical level. However, such unions, our unions, are not productive of life. This is a huge point that you ignore. Why?
The alternative to consequentialism is a view of the world rooted in the facts about the human person. Such facts take into account one's sexuality in terms of its source and ends. Such thinking examines what we owe to others and those things we need for flourishing. It encourages one to think of the other before the self until at last a peace descends, long after we've defeated the 'fat, relentless ego'.
Final point, 'gay marriage' isn't unlawful - it just doesn't exist. There is no penalty for havng a fake wedding. Claims that the Govt actively oppresses various groups don't make sense.
Here's a response I posted to one claim that I was 'rude, embarrassing and offensive':
In any event, the choice was between being polite and sitting quiet - being asked one pap question about religion as if I am some Vatican-controlled robot - or standing up for the views of the vast majority of the community. In such an unfair environment, one has to be forthright.
While no one pretends I wasn't loud and forceful, others have indicated that they shouted at the TV when the host cut me off and lamented the fact that the room jumped on me whenever I opened my mouth. I've also been told by many young, straight guys that I was the only guest they'd listen to again.
Afterwards, the room divided according to views held before the debate, I have no doubt people in TV land did the same. The key question, however, is whose ideas are being debated?
Sure, I made a fool of myself, but at least I got the ideas out there. I am happy to sacrifice ridiculous pride/ego for the sake of the cause. Kick me, go ahead, but it's harder to knock down the ideas I carry. No one remembers that woman's name or her reasons for 'gay marriage' (actually, she eventually said she doesn't support the thing!) but everyone is talking about the reasons for opposition.
Not bad for a total of five mins air-time and all it cost was the guts to tell the truth, no matter how immediately unpopular.
Ultimately, we're all working for what we think is best: for SSA men and women, children and society as a whole. Echo-chambers don't help anyone and dissenting voices, no matter how immediately challenging, are often keys to the wider puzzle. That's why I seek out the opposition, I engage my detractors. No one can claim my comments boxes are biased, or stuffed with sycophants. I love a good debate! Long may such robust interaction reign at DREADNOUGHT Thank you all.
[As an aside, it's interesting to note that while site traffic hit a near record yesterday, 51% of it still came from the US where I was linked/discussed because of issues other than 'gay marriage'. Thank you, especially, to my faithful, clever, articulate US (and Dutch, Iranian, Italian, Norwegian, etc.) DREADNOUGHTERS ]
"I don't know Atiyah, your view of liberalism is a little strange"
Yes strange to you Dread ... but then you aren't a classical liberal. Then you go on to quote me that the matter should be entirely a private one. Of course at that point the Catholic Church would be free to impose whatever rules for marriage it wishes as would civil celebrants and whoever else wanted to get into the marrying business.
It is interesting to note that marriage found its way into the civil legal system (from being a matter of canon law) because of the need for reform and the inflexibility of the Church principally over the matter of divorce. It was a practical intervention by civil law rather than all the high brow principle trotted out here.
Again Dread I struggle to find the difference between marriage and civil unions in your proposition, whatever it is it seems to be extra legal.
You view of the role of the legal system seems to be that it should mould society by providing a limited range of choices for the legal recognition of relationships. Aside from being dangerous I cannot see what benefit is gained by only providing recognition to some relationships and not others.
Of course heterosexual marriage is beneficial to society – that’s why most couples will consider it and many will marry. The legal regime is not the determining factor - nor would opening it to homosexual couples have any affect on heterosexual couples or result in any detectable harm to "society." A civil union regime here has shown no such affect.
I have viewed the programme - I thought it a fair summary of the various views. I tend to agree with the ex Chief Family Court Judge.
As for your behaviour Dread Well at least you speak nicely…. even if you are excitable.
The Church's 'inflexibility' over divorce, in this age of family disintegration, is surely starting to look like a good thing, no?
Ha ha! I went out afterwards and got royally drunk! I was on a serious high. I'd have taken the whole audience, indeed I even offered to have a drink with the mother of the sixteen year old sometime. She was very sweet
John wrote:
If ["ideal"] is not an objective truth, it must be one of the best candidate.
How so? For what or whose meaning of "best"? Your ideal is not my ideal, therefore not (in my view) an objective truth. Even if its the popular ideal, that doesn't make it objective truth, merely popular belief. How does that justify excluding same-sex partners from legal marriage?
The family exists, is celebrated and encouraged in almost every culture anywhere on earth. Our genes, hearts, developmental needs etc, serve and are served by it.
I'm aware that families exist and the benefits thereof . But families per se is not the issue. Same-sex partners can, do and will have families. Legal same-sex marriage won't alter this.
Incidentally, I reject your claim that same-sex couples cannot form a valid family. The couples on Insight, among others, belie that claim.
If anything is a good reason to discriminate, such fundamental facts about the human person are surely amongst them.
A lucky dip of generic observations about humankind do not a thesis make. Which "fundamental facts about the human person" constitute a "good reason" to exclude same-sex partners from legal marriage?
John replied:
Personal liberty is best served by private arrangements.
How so? For what or whose meaning of "best"? And if that were true, then why aren't the liberties of opposite-gender couples also "best served by private arrangements"?
Brendan wrote:
The Government [dictates] what the gender of my adult life partner must NOT be
John replied:
The government doesn't tell you who you can be with
I didn't suggest otherwise. How about responding to what I actually said?
Marriage benefits the individuals involved, society, the children raised and Catholics believe, as a sacrament, it also strengthens the partners in love for each other.
And that justifies excluding same-sex partners from legal marriage how? Same-sex marriage would also benefit those individuals involved, society, the children raised and strengthen the partners in love for each other.
Family is not a conservative idea at all
Indeed. Yet the debate is not about family per se but legal same-sex marriage.
I know that same sex relationships can be enduring, committed [...]. However, such unions are not productive of life
Procreative potential is not a legal nor instrinsic requirement of marriage. It is a weak basis on which to deny same-sex couples the legal right to marry.
The alternative to consequentialism...
I don't see how narrow biological determinism, restrictive definitions of social entities/institutions (eg. parents, families, marriage) and a foregone conclusion that variation is disordered will lead to the panacea you describe. You labelling me as "consequentialist" is also odd, given that underlying all of your arguments is a set of presumed consequences (benefits
John wrote:
The Church's 'inflexibility' over divorce, in this age of family disintegration, is surely starting to look like a good thing, no?
Inflexibility can't be too good for the Church, if the decline trend in flock size and priest numbers is any indicator.
Any organisation with concurrent high attrition in both its customer base AND its employees has cause for serious reappraisal of its value offering, market position and strategic plan.
[prior to last post cont'd...]
The alternative to consequentialism...
I don't see how narrow biological determinism, restrictive definitions of social entities/institutions (eg. parents, families, marriage) and a foregone conclusion that variation is disordered will lead to the panacea you describe. You labelling me as "consequentialist" is also odd, given that underlying all of your arguments is a set of presumed consequences (benefits to individuals, society, children, families and marriage) flowing from actions that lead those consequences must therefore be good.
Final point, 'gay marriage' isn't unlawful - it just doesn't exist.
Unlawful. adj. 1. Not lawful; illegal.
Lawful. adj. Being within the law; allowed by law
The law makes no allowance for same-sex marriage, but specifically excludes it. It is not allowed by law. It is unlawful. To the extent that if federal marriage celebrants process marriage applications from same-sex partners, they may be fined and lose their license. They're also required to declare the statutory definition of marriage at marriage ceremonies to ensure everyone gets the point: that it's only legal between men and women.
Claims that the Govt actively oppresses various groups don't make sense.
See above. The Govt's legislation deliberately reinforced exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. It is clear oppression of same-sex couples. Whether active (ie intentional) or passive (ie consequential) makes little difference if the outcome is the same.
And why no blogging on that other legal issue of note in Australia - the case before the High Court where the States seek to challenge the Federal Govt's Industrial Relations reforms. Where is the summary of the issues (probably more coherent than Counsel for the States) where is the précis of Australia Federalism, where is the likely position of the Judges and the Courts approach to the balance between State and Federal Governments in the past.
Tut tut.
Do I have to search the net for matters Australian when significant legal issues (not just minor notes like gay marriage) should be covered here
Are you a one trick pony Dread
"Your ideal is not my ideal, therefore not (in my view) an objective truth"
This reveals your arrogance, not mine. It also smacks of relativism. Children aren't born to men and women because I believe they are, rather procreation is an objective truth. We ignore it and its consequences at our peril.
The rest of your arguments are variations on the same theme. You discount, obscure or ignore this basic fact of human life. Of course, marriage is all about family. If one man and one woman didn't often produce offspring marriage would not exist.
"Which "fundamental facts about the human person" constitute a "good reason" to exclude same-sex partners from legal marriage?"
The fact that, as I have said over and over, one man and one woman make new life. This is an extraordinary thing. Why do you ignore it?
I don't have to explain why private arrangements best serve personal liberty. The experiences of the last century prove that thesis. Marriage is given special status at a public level, however, because it is NOT just about personal liberty (the only argument you seem to have), but also serves the common good and the continuation of the species.
"And that justifies excluding same-sex partners from legal marriage how?"
You seem to operate on a basic level. You refuse to see how structural aspects of legal regimes encourage or fail to encourage wider behaviour. By protecting and encouraging family, we serve the common good because all the benefits of family are, protected and encouraged. By weakening the family - i.e., by encouraging experimental arrangements - we reduce the resources devoted to the family and it must needs suffer.
"Procreative potential is not a legal nor instrinsic requirement of marriage. It is a weak basis on which to deny same-sex couples the legal right to marry."
This is purely your opinion. It is rejected by most people, for good reason.
The Church is not declining. She gains new members and new priest every year. She is a global body, attrition in the West is balanced by massive growth in Africa and Asia. Even so, she is not a populist thing, she had her greatest impact as a one Man show with 12 groupies.
The argument isn't that they must therefore be good, rather it's that they are objectively good (true) and are also demonstrably so. Such a thing, the unity of a priori and a posteriori conclusions is generally considered rationally coherent. Your views are, obviously, not so well ordered.
You can have a fake 'marriage' Brendan, without being arrested. Force/ coercion is a key test of illegality. Your Federal marriage celebrant might be fined, but you are free to find someone else and do whatever you like, as the Australian people are free to ignore the overweening claims of a minority of a minority to disrupt the central institution of civilization.
DREADNOUGHT is about SSA men, the Church and our wider place in society. I have to sleep sometime Atiyah!
And the pony's looking a little sick, given Brendan Lloyd's and your own comprehensive rebuttal of DN's arguments.
A day home with the flu has given me the chance to finally watch the show. And seeing you disintergrate in a room full of mums and dads and committed partners - huffing about surveys and talking over a 16 yr old kid - was much much less satisfying than I thought it would be.
In this world of right/wrong, either/or 'rationalist' discourse, you think you can always "win" (Brendan's arguments may begin to refute that assumption). But you don't seem to realise, that out in the real world it's not about "winning" an argument. It's about the lived experiences of people's lives - their most intimate lived experiences - and their right to choose what those experiences might be. Watching you in that debate it was almost as if you were waiting for a disembodied 'argument' to appear and were shocked that instead, all you got were ordinary people. And with them, you were incoherent. In your surveys and your dry 'arguments', you didn't have the words.
My sick day has also given me the chance to actually read the study you tout no end as a central platform of your 'argument'. Just shows that it pays to check what was asked and how it was asked.
Firstly your claim that most gay and lesbian people are not in a relationship is false. Around 60% of women and 48% of men are in a relationship, according to the survey. Ok, so there are 52% of men not in a relationship and that is, by a sliver, a majority. But it's rather underwhelming. It's also irrelevant to the question of whether they may, in the future want to formalise their relationship.
Your second claim was the real stinker. This is the survey upon which you have based your claim that most gay men and women do not 'want' gay marriage. That's not what the survey said. Participants were asked whether they wanted to formalise their CURRENT relationship and NOT whether or not they would wish to at some time in the future. (Again, by 'majority' we're talking marginal and, if more women had been surveyed, non-existant: between 52% of men and 39% of women). I'm sure if you asked a broad cross-section of heterosexual people the same question, they wouldn't rush out and marry their partner tomorrow -you'd get broadly the same results.
They were also not asked whether they believed these were worthwhile rights for those who would wish to invoke them. Therefore, the findings DO NOT support the claim that most in the gay community reject the notion of gay marriage.
Read it people, before taking DN's misrepresentations on trust.
Sorry, my bad, that's 67% of women in the survey.
I don't think Brendan's comment could be called a comprehensive rebuttal Georgina. Talking about marriage without discussing procreation is like talking about hats without mentioning heads.
I might have been excited Georgina, but I wasn't incoherent. If wanting to make rational statements and debating the same on a rational level (rather than resorting to emotive nonsense of the 'look at me, I'm so happy, this can't be wrong' type - otherwise known as hedonism) is falling apart: I happily crashed and burned.
I fixed up the misquote on lesbians,. but it remains the case that the majority of men are 'not in any kind of same sex relationship at all'. This is important because it shows that those who argue that men should marry men are arguing for the thing on behalf of a tiny minority of a tiny minority. Marriage impacts all humans. Stuffing it up to satisfy the whims of a tiny number is silly.
The second claim is not the question you'd like to have asked, but it is the most honest, telling one. Governments don't legislate based on what people might, perhaps, want years down the track, nor do they legislate based on what people think might, perhaps, be okay for other people.
They legislate to improve the common good and facilitate the flourishing of individuals.
This is how the real world works and it's why neither the ALP nor the Liberals and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will ever support 'gay marriage'. If significant numbers wanted it, you'd think at least one serious party would support it. They don't and the parties ignore the matter, rightfully so.
Your reading of the survey is, literally, incredible. It's like saying a man who just said he doesn't want to buy a cat really wants to buy a cat, you just have to ask him in the right words (i.e., might you, perhaps, maybe, if it ever becomes likely, want to, perhaps, you know, get a little kitty cat, so cute, you know, because it's unfair not to have the right to have a cat at some stage in the, maybe, you know, future?) Of course ridiculously wide questions will get a positive endorsement. But that is no evidence of support for a proposition, rather proof that people don't like to shut of options, no matter how silly and unlikely it is that they'd ever go ahead with it.
Reading in that manner is called bias, not honesty.
Only 5-10% reported formalising their relationships, the majority of SSA men were not in any kind of SS relationship at all and the vast majority (fully two thirds) indicated that they had no intention of formalising their relationships.
Read the thing for yourself. It takes a huge amount of guesswork and spin to make those look like figures that support 'gay marriage'. But then, it takes a huge amount of guff to make the case - with a straight face - that SSA men and the wider community want the thing too, but that doesn't stop the extremists
Really, we're going around in circles. The study speaks for itself. I spoke for myself. My opponents continue to speak for themselves.
If I am wrong, if the study is wrong and SSA men and women really do support 'gay marriage' in significant numbers, where are they? Where are the marchers? Where are the voters? Put simply, a very vocal minority of the minority likes the idea of 'gay marriage', and coupled with the usual extremist elements, radical feminists, anarchists, socialists, etc. continue to fool themselves that because all their mates agree, the rest of the world does too.
This is demonstrably false.
Similarly, no matter how shrill is the 'gay press' and those few who support the radical 'gay agenda' - 'gay marriage' is as far from being legislated here - and in the US - as it was three years ago. That's not an obvious impetus, or an inexorable grassroots drive, that's total failure.
At the end of all this, no one has made a serious case for the introduction of a full blown 'gay marriage' regime. They've spoken about hedonism, relativism and given some examples of personal experiences. However, none of these add up to a rational, research-approved, morally clear case for undermining the family in society.
This is the case in the wider community as well and it underlies the ongoing unpopularity of the idea.
I'm happy to take emails on the matter and to discuss the thing on other posts, but this thread has served its purpose and I won't be hovering over it to answer each and every comment hereon in.
Thank you all for your effort and for your contributions. Robust debate is electrifying, no!
You're right this is silly, and boring.
My reading of the survey was not "incredible". I was simply pointing out that the participants were asked "Do you intend to formalise your current relationship?" and NOT "Do you support gay marriage and/or civil unions?"
Pretty simple. Formulating ridiculously broad questions involving kittens only makes you look silly.
Your observation is what I said it was: make the question broad enough and most people would support it.
However, the real test of whether or not someone 'wants' something is if he would actually undergo it, no?
If no one wants to have a 'gay marriage' why is it so 'vital' that we have the nonsense?
Kittens are always radically serious
Brendan (bold type) wrote:
Your ideal is not my ideal, therefore not (in my view) an objective truth
John (DREADNOUGHT) replied:
This reveals your arrogance, not mine. It also smacks of relativism.
Disgreeing with the way you equate your ideals with objective truth makes *me* arrogant? 'Sure it does'. Last I checked, it wasn't *me* that numerous people were recently describing as arrogant (and a few nastier things besides). Not that I care if you think I'm arrogant or would rather just label me and be done. That won't prove your points. That won't refute mine. That won't substantively explain why we should continue to deny marriage rights to same-sex partners.
Children aren't born to men and women because I believe they are, rather procreation is an objective truth. [...] one man and one woman make new life. This is an extraordinary thing. [...]
I didn't suggest otherwise. What's your point? Yet again, you ignore the objective truth that marriage is not about procreation per se. Procreation existed long before marriage and will outlive marriage.
Of course, marriage is all about family
All? Then shouldn't we exclude those unwilling/unable to procreate from legal marriage? Won't allowing them to marry "reduce the resources devoted to the family", as you put it?
If one man and one woman didn't often produce offspring marriage would not exist.
Even if that were true, so? How is that a basis on which to deny marriage rights today? Forever looking backwards will not take us forward. The origins of marriage inform our understanding of it but this doesn't mean it is (or should be) immutable. The Family Court also observed this (given the changing nature of marriage throughout history and cultures).
I don't have to explain why private arrangements best serve personal liberty. The experiences of the last century prove that thesis.
You make the claim, substantiate it. Cite those experiences. Show us how they prove that hypothesis. You call on others to prove what they say. Debate would be both electrifying AND robust were you to do the same.
Marriage is given special status at a public level, however, because it is NOT just about personal liberty (the only argument you seem to have)...
It's seethingly irritating when you start arguing something I never said. I never said "Marriage is about personal liberty". I made a personal observation about why I care about the issue of legal marriage rights for same sex couples. You ignore the actual arguments I've made. Including that marriage for same-sex couples would confer most of the attendant positives that opposite gender marriage currently does.
...but also serves the common good and the continuation of the species.
The continuation of the species is not under threat from same-sex marriage. The common good stands to be enhanced by legalising same-sex marriage, for all the reasons I
... I've already described and you've ignored.
You seem to operate on a basic level.
As do you John. By evading the question and going off on tangents. This issue is simpler than you make it out to be.
You refuse to see how structural aspects of legal regimes encourage or fail to encourage wider behaviour.
No I don't. I just happen to think that changing the legal regime to enable same-sex couples to marry would be good (for all the reasons cited in my response to your demand that I "make the case" for legal same-sex marriage).
Same-sex attraction is here to stay. People aren't going to be discouraged from same-sex activity because they can't marry. It will simply remain more covert, taboo and risky than it needs to be, possibly (ironically!) jeopardising stability of individuals, families and society far more than legal same-sex marriage ever could.
By protecting and encouraging family, we serve the common good because all the benefits of family are, protected and encouraged. By weakening the family - i.e., by encouraging experimental arrangements - we reduce the resources devoted to the family and it must needs suffer.
How? Substantiate this assertion. Which families' needs will suffer? How?
Procreative potential is not a legal nor instrinsic requirement of marriage. It is a weak basis on which to deny same-sex couples the legal right to marry.
This is purely your opinion. It is rejected by most people, for good reason.
Which reasons? For what or whose measure of best? It's an objective truth, not an opinion. Neither the law nor reality excludes sterile couples from marriage. Clearly, procreative potential is not a legal nor instrinsic requirement of marriage. While I know you don't think their judgements are populist enough to matter, the Family Court of Australia concurs on this. So do the Parliaments of those countries who have legalised same-sex marriage. No "perilous consequences" there yet.
You can have a fake 'marriage' Brendan, without being arrested. Force/coercion is a key test of illegality.
I don't want a fake marriage. In the event that I form a committed life partnership, I want the right to equivalent protection of our relationship under the law. Currently this is not only outside of the law, it is implicitly excludd from it. Not lawful. Unlawful. "Unlawful" can mean "something excluded from or not provided for by law" AND "something that is a punishable offense". You seem unprepared to accept this.
... the Australian people are free to ignore the overweening claims of a minority of a minority to disrupt the central institution of civilization.
Charming dysphemism, that. Of course they are free to ignore continued calls for relationship law reform. Doesn't make it fair, just or reasonable.
John wrote:
The real test of whether or not someone 'wants' something is if he would actually undergo it, no?
No. The question was not about in-principle agreement but current personal intent. That is not a comprehensive analysis of want.
Regardless, populism should not be the criterion on which these sorts of legal decisions are made. If it were, homosexual acts could still be criminal behaviour; you and I could be serving prison for past homogenital acts instead of walking free.
Meanwhile, it's funny that you attack my "consequentialism" and then throw back bare-faced populism as if that were a comprehensive rebuttal. What's with that?
*Disclaimer*. I hope this was already obvious, but i was not suggesting (and outright reject any unintended implication) that Dreadnought & I ever committed homogenital acts, either separately or together. I was merely posing a hypothetical.
Dread: “You seem to operate on a basic level. You refuse to see how structural aspects of legal regimes encourage or fail to encourage wider behaviour”
But Dread evidence and history is against you. No legal intervention regarding homosexuality has ever worked. In case you haven’t worked it out, the supply of homosexuals is more or less constant - how would gay marriage/civil unions “encourage” more of them or more homosexual behaviour.
Dread “By protecting and encouraging family, we serve the common good because all the benefits of family are, protected and encouraged. By weakening the family - i.e., by encouraging experimental arrangements - we reduce the resources devoted to the family and it must needs suffer”
This is just so much BS and circular too boot. There is no link that has been demonstrated here or elsewhere that proves such a link. WHAT resources are you speaking of?”
But this Dread statement is just astounding… the claim that governments “legislate to improve the common good and facilitate the flourishing of individuals" Where is the evidence to support this contention? And you have a law degree!!
It certainly isn’t the history of statutory intervention on the issue of marriage. And of course I would argue that objectively the evidence weighs against the Church in her teaching regarding homosexuality – she does terrible harm thus her view of the flourishing of homosexual individuals SHOULD not be put into public policy relating to homosexuals or their rights or affairs at all.
Are you also clairvoyant – how can you tell what might happen in Australia in the future, or anywhere else for that matter. Such blanket claims with such certainty with no evidence to support it. I suspect Australia will end up with a patch work of civil union regimes State by State initially.
Look at your language: “Put simply, a very vocal minority of the minority” and “coupled with the usual extremist elements, radical feminists, anarchists, socialists, etc. continue to fool themselves that because all their mates agree, the rest of the world does too.”
You carve up the world into collectives – goodies and badies – gay family wreakers verses the defenders of the true way. And this terrible terrible minority of a minority who are causing all this fuss. And then we discover that many homosexual men have multiple partners as do many young heterosexual men who are unmarried, not in a defacto (and some men who are married or in de factos) do (I have just realised with a mistress is!). So what!!!!! None of this is a basis for public policy on marriage. You have pulled out a rubber chicken from you hat for a 'da daa moment' but its still a just a rubber chicken.
More importantly this language that damns this minority of a minority speaks volumes about your mindset. Mmmm I wonder who said “what you do to the least of my brothers you do to me”
The truth is Dread the issue has nothing to do with numbers. Even if only two women only wanted their relationship to be given legal recognition the case is still compelling. Public policy is not about the rule of the mob or the pulpit. The legal system should by and large give affect to how citizens wish to arrange their lives consistent with the freedom of other citizens to do the same. J.S. Mill covered the issue of natural inclinations (in women) which are beneficial to society when he observed that if things are so beneficial, people will do them anyway irrespective of the law so laws that try to shape these outcomes are unnecessary – or perhaps JS Mill is a bit strange on his liberalism too.
While I am interested in SSA and the Church - broaden you horizons, reflect, return to subjects, grow. I would like to see your take on other issues that you are interested in and are significant for Australia - you never can tell I might even agree with you. It's your blog however so its entirely up to you. Variety is the spice of life (except for marriage)
You might want to reduce your arguments to five or ten dot points Atiyah. I am not a robot and if I responded to all the assertions you make above in a fitting manner I'd have to write a thesis man.
The central issue, I suppose, is the idea that the state legislates in favour of the common good. This is not a silly fancy, it is a fact. The Constitution of Victoria says government is constituted for the 'good order and governance of the State', Australia is called a Commonwealth (another name for common good) and so are many US States. The Declaration of Indepdence and the US Constitution speak of truths that are self evident and go on to describe government by the people, for the people of the people; in the interests of the common good.
If the common good is not the focus of liberal democracy, what on earth is?
Plus, I have a shtick. No point muddying the waters.
If you want my opinion on wider issues, send concise emails and I'll hold forth. However, I'm not sure anyone else wants to read it
Atiyah wrote:
Public policy is not about the rule of the mob or the pulpit. The legal system should by and large give affect to how citizens wish to arrange their lives consistent with the freedom of other citizens to do the same.
Well said, Atiyah. I love your succinctness.
John, there's one dot point. How is your subjective "common good" view of law better than Atiyah's view? And how would same-sex marriage be against the "common good"?
Try answering without deferring to "natural order" or restrictive definitions of family & marriage (ie. terms which are themselves not definitive of the "common good", in the sense you use them).
P.S That unsigned post above was mine
I only wish POGG (Peace, Order and Good Government) clauses/sections establishing government actually constrained that government to doing for individuals those things that they cannot do for themselves (as a liberal would), but alas that is not how Judges have viewed such clauses.
My point it that common good is not derived from laws and governments but from the values and choices we make in our lives. People are not clay to be moulded to live their lives how I might like them to do because I am a lawmaker, busy body or social engineer. I distrust both socialists and conservatives who wish to grab the leavers of power and remake the world.
Consider your own reasoning and how it supports my contention. If laws on marriage where intended to bring about strong marriages, then how come it hasn’t worked. Maybe laws and government action often has unintended consequences. Maybe most State interventions into the lives of citizens often make it harder for those citizens and their families, hence my support for limited constrained government. That is why I would favour either the State exiting the marriage business or allowing the law to REFLECT how people chose to live their lives. In this sense marriage laws open to homosexual unions/civil union regimes only recognise underlying relationships that already exist - they don’t actually create them.
It is John Stuart Mill’s 200 hundredth year birthday tomorrow.
Dread, I hope you do post on other issues over and above your favourites – this helps your advocacy and writing skills. It is also interesting to see linkages between things even if only tangential; this often provides a better perspective.
Atiyah, you have me nodding furiously. I'd love to talk more with you and read other writings you may have? If you wish, drop me a quick hi via brendan (DOT) lloyd (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
Either way, superb reasoning, well-balanced arguments. Awesome.
"John, there's one dot point. How is your subjective "common good" view of law better than Atiyah's view? And how would same-sex marriage be against the "common good"?"
Hey Brendan, read my DREADTHESIS on the sidebar. Natural law is a coherent, long standing, robust method for the right ordering of society.
My view of family is not restrictive, it is demonstrably beneficial for individuals and society as a whole.
The common good is served by laws that accord with the natural order. Human law coheres with the universal law of the universe.
Atiyah, your very relative idea of the Good ties into my other paper Fuck The UN - Extended, also on the sidebar.
"If laws on marriage where intended to bring about strong marriages, then how come it hasn’t worked."
It has worked and to the extent that it hasn't, this is because of lax divorce laws and a failure to properly encourage marriage. Rather than further weakening the thing with 'gay marriage' and other experiments, we should shore up the central idea.
It's great that people are thinking about the wider structure of ideas. However, even more so than on the particular basis, natural law is seriously attractive and indeed robust at an abstracted level.
From Monty Python's "Philosophers Song":
John Stuart Mill of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
And you make a good point, John H; how will gay marriage make stronger the traditional marriages we have? Because it's pretty obvious that if society doesn't do something to strengthen them, there will be a demonstrable increase in all kinds of problems.
It's hardly a good argument for the Common Good to say, "well heteros are shit at keeping marriage together, so why not make it available to everyone?"
Precisely.
I have been dismayed to learn that none of this derives from a hyper-appreciation for marriage, rather from a devalued view. It is usually cynical and often incoherent.
God bless Monty Python, Louise!
As far as I could see, watching Insight, the major problem is that at least three different questions were being argued as one.
1. Should a person be able to formalise their relationship legally regardless of gender;
2. Is this kind of legal arrangement on a par with the social institution of marriage;
and
3. Should same-sex couples (or singles, for that matter) have/adopt/raise children?
It's no wonder things got messy. People were simply shouting out their feelings about any or all of those questions and calling it 'debate'... And any time parents feel you're questioning their ability as a parent (whether you are or not), you basically lose all chance of reasonable discourse.
I've found, in general, that emotions have no place in moral decisions; and equally I've found that the great majority of people believe the exact opposite. Our individualistic culture tells us that our own feelings are paramount , and the only reliable indicator of whether we're doing the "right" thing.
Don't let the bastards grind ya down, John. =)
Dread: “The common good is served by laws that accord with the natural order. Human law coheres with the universal law of the universe”
Mmmm this is simply an assertion, a belief and a religious one too – not the basis in which one should make public policy in the area of legally recognised unions. Did they give you marks in a Family Law paper at Melbourne for this sort of reasoning?
As dread well knows, ‘classical’ natural law is a very minor stream in legal philosophy especially in matters municipal law and has been so for at least 200+ years. It is enjoying a renewed interest in rarefied academic circles but usually with an emphasis on the universality of certain rights rather than an explicitly divine source of those rights – probably much to Dread’s chagrin.
Dread: “It has worked [marriage laws in an environment of divorce and Dread’s social crisis] and to the extent that it hasn't, this is because of lax divorce laws and a failure to properly encourage marriage. Rather than further weakening the thing with 'gay marriage' and other experiments, we should shore up the central idea”
There are a number of fallacies here. The ability to divorce does not cause divorce. Just like the legal recognition of homosexual unions does not create homosexual unions. Again divorce laws simply recognise the relationship realities that exist. Does the freedom to emigrate result in all Australians leaving Australia and going to New Zealand? Of course not.
To work oneself up and to whip up others about the fear of change and the unknown is not a very rational approach to public policy in this area. I doubt there is anything the law can do, or should do to “shore up the central idea’ of marriage – that is up to individuals and the values they put into practice into their own lives. Nor have you demonstrated why homosexual unions should be denied legal recognition in order to achieve this or what the exact mechanism is that provides this “shoring up.”
Actually I do recognise the difference between good and bad – I just don’t assume that you are standing for the good (read as ‘right’) position on this issue on the basis of self assertion or the notion that it is Church teaching ipso facto it’s good.
Dearest Louise from Adelaide usually civil engineers are sensible. Thank you for your meaningful contribution on John Stuart Mill, a man who did more to shape that nature of the Australian legal system than the Catholic Church has done. I am surprised that Dread who is a philosophy graduate allows such a comment to go unanswered. Try googling John Stuart Mill Louise – you might learn something or there is a lovely podcast on Melvyn Bragg’s “In Our Time” programme on BBC Radio 4 which is an excellent introduction to him and his remarkable life and times.
Thanks Cat, I think you're right. As we saw, emotive examples and appeals to nebulous ideas about 'love' and 'rights' really amount to a cry for hedonism.
To simply dismiss natural law as nothing but a religious assertion is silly Atiyah. Why did they give Finnis a Chair at Oxford? Who edits the Oxford Essays on Jurisprudence? Your characterisation of the discipline (what on earth is 'classical' natural law anyway?) is incredible.
If one cannot divorce, it's pretty hard to bring about divorce Atiyah. Certainly no fault divorce creates a perverse incentive to throw your marriage off whenever it gets a bit tough.
To charaterise me as a simple reactionary or a religious idiot misses the point. We've tried these dated sixties ideas, they don't work. We need new solutions, who cares if they're also the old solutions? That's not conservativism, that's common sense.
Please keep your tone respectful Atiyah. I am enough of a philosophy grad to know that sage minds operate in serenity, they don't bitch and carp
Oh and don't forget I am pretty close to the classical liberals. I've had a little bit to do with the CIS in Australia and I sometimes write for their 'Policy Magazine'.
I reject liberalism because - without a metaphysical foundation - it is incoherent; not because I am ignorant of its claims and applications.
This silly idea that a believer cannot be a thinker is a stinking form of 'acceptable' bigotry. It must be put aside.
I think I have made a fairly neat case for why 'gay marriage' sucks arse. If, after almost 200 comments, two television appearances, thousands of words of blog and two reasonably robust papers you still don't agree - that means you don't agree, not that my arguments are flawed/absent or obscure.
Just talking the ideas through is a victory
"As we saw, emotive examples and appeals to nebulous ideas about 'love' and 'rights' really amount to a cry for hedonism."
Not true. There were gay and lesbian couples in the show who were committed, loving and who wished nothing more than to build a loving environment. To put love between quotation marks proves your cognitive dissonance.
The only reason I can think of why you refuse to acknowledge the love between the partners in before mentioned couples, is that you have to keep your sexuality out of your loving according to your view of SSA. Therefore, it's a threat when you see others who have integrated their sexuality into their loving. Just shouting at them will not solve your dilemma.
They, apparently, already had 'loving environments'. What can the government add to love?
They don't want love, they want tax breaks, 'recognition' (whatever that means) and attention.
All this nonsense about me being self-hating, threatened, bitter, etc. is a little rich Vincent. I don't think you know me well enough to make such judgements. If your argument is that because I'm Catholic I must hate myself, well that's simple bigotry and it's unworthy of you.
I wasn't shouting at them, I was - unfortunately - shouting with them
Dread: “To simply dismiss natural law as nothing but a religious assertion is silly Atiyah. Why did they give Finnis a Chair at Oxford?”
What I actually said was the assertion that natural law should apply in the area of family law was just that: an assertion or a belief and actually for you Dread- it’s a religious one. There is no evidence to support the impost of natural law theory with previous statutory interventions in marriage laws or any area of family law for that matter. Surely statutory intervention is an illustration of the triumph of the philosophy of legal positivism over natural law theory any way.
You are of course free to argue that natural law theory should be the basis of Australian municipal law but I guess you would need to be very clear as to what that actually means in the context of a secular State.
As to why Finnis is a professor at Oxford – I guess because he is a significant academic. However this does not get away from the fact that natural law theory is not the underlying legal philosophy underpinning the municipal legal systems of most nations.
Natural law theory is re-surfacing in international law where there is an increasing emphasis on how States treat their citizens rather than the interaction between States. But even there the emphasis is on the universality of rights rather than the divine source of those rights.
Dread: “If one cannot divorce, it's pretty hard to bring about divorce Atiyah. Certainly no fault divorce creates a perverse incentive to throw your marriage off whenever it gets a bit tough”
Are you seriously advocating for the return of fault based divorce or no divorce. Again your emphasis is on legal form mine is on the underlying substance – again Dread a touching belief in legal positivism - the law says a marriage is a marriage because the law says it’s a marriage just like a fish can be a fowl if the law says so.
Dread: “To characterise me as a simple reactionary or a religious idiot misses the point. We've tried these dated sixties ideas, they don't work” And “This silly idea that a believer cannot be a thinker is a stinking form of 'acceptable' bigotry”
Never made either of these claims. Blah blah blah on the “dated sixties” stuff.
Dread: “I reject liberalism because - without a metaphysical foundation - it is incoherent; not because I am ignorant of its claims and applications”
“Incoherent” in your view but then this contention is not supported by the weight of evidence. And liberalism is certainly less exotic and has more currency than natural law theory.
I agree people should not get emotional over these issues – especially on t.v. I am always respectful of reasoned argument backed by EVIDENCE but not impressed with the shrill voice of prophets of doom who predict the end of civilisation with the introduction of gay marriage/civil unions.
Atiyah,
1. Impost? Who mentioned municipal law? Who is arguing for positive changes to the legal system? Not me. I am arguing against them. None of your associated questions/statements make sense in this context.
2. How does the fact that positivism reigns help you? Surely it's an example of why we need new answers.
3. If I advocate something, I state as much clearly.
4. Read my papers, most of the other things you ask/assume are dealt with there and in a more substantial form than a comments box.
5. It really is rather futile to attempt a serious jurisprudential debate here. Sadly 
6. You keep referring to 'evidence' but what you mean is a particular, blinkered, empiricism-centric epistemology.
7. Here's a statement of pure belief, based on solid observation and reinforced by common sense (like most natural law claims) THE SUN WILL RISE TOMORROW. I have no 'evidence' for this claim, no surveys, no test tubes filled with precipitate.
8. If it doesn't, sure I'm a fool, but what will it matter to anyone?
9. These are the kind of truths ('we hold these truths to be self-evident', etc) that underpin and animate natural law. They're not vague or obscure. They're written on every human heart.
As this doesn't have much to do with 'gay marriage' I'm going to have to retire from this thread. Feel free to direct new comments to the box at the top of the page Thanks for your input, all of you.
Commenting by HaloScan
