Homophobes oppressed by majority

In the homophobes’ continuing efforts to protect themselves from the horror of seeing gay people get married, they used to at least be able to pretend that they had popular support for their bigotry. There used to actually be some kind of debate between the principle of majority rules and protecting the basic human rights of minorities.

But even that has now been taken away from them:

In 31 of the 32 demographic cohorts measured, a majority of Australians support same sex marriage with only the over 50’s being the odd cohort out, where in that unique case the against held a plurality lead of 49 to 45.

gendera

I mean, we always knew that, barring a theocratic revolution, they were going to lose in the long-run, and that their efforts to keep this generation of gay people down were even pettier and more spiteful given that, deep down, they knew it. But who dared to predict that they’d lose popular support so quickly?

How are they going to justify governments denying gay people equal rights now? And how are our mainstream politicians going to justify not voting for the Greens’ Equal Marriage Bill?

UPDATE: Really, where does this leave the bigots? The pro-equality side has never relied on populism: we’ve simply argued the basic position that governments should not discriminate against people on the grounds of gender unless there’s a very, very good reason – and no such reason appears to have been found by the homophobes.

But they’ve relied on “we’re in the majority” quite heavily. With that gone, what are they left with? Their stupid “definition of marriage” argument, which would disappear the moment the change was legislated? Their frequently-contradicted every time a post-menopausal woman is married “marriage is only for couples who can procreate” line? Their scary if-taken-seriously “parliaments should enact the provisions of Leviticus” demand?

They’ve got nothing – except organised fundamentalists who are prepared to fight very, very dirty.

UPDATE #2: There will be a National Day Of Action on 1st August. Please do what you can. (Via Ben in the comments.)

About these ads

41 responses to “Homophobes oppressed by majority

  1. Yeah in my experience it’s only old people and ethnics who now oppose gay marriage.

  2. “Ethnics”?!

  3. Well, the over-50s are a big group, but these figures suggest that change is virtually inevitable. It’s happened overseas, and the sky hasn’t fallen in.

  4. Referendum territory. Unlike the republic question, the outcome is clear and widely understood. Either you support gay marriage or you don’t. The affirmative just means the transferal of full rights that heterosexual couples have to same sex partners. The negative means that you are happy with the status quo.

    This in my view is a question that defines Australian society in a very real way and should therefore have popular support expressed at a ballot box. No legal challenges allowed from the losing side – it then becomes STFU time.

  5. Not even close. The majority does not have the right to discriminate against the minority, full stop. If the 1967 referendum had gone against finally giving aborigines the vote, it would still have been wrong.

    The only result that will ultimately be accepted is equality. On this issue, there are no good arguments that have been presented against it.

  6. The homosexual lobby is gaining ground through the helpful efforts of people like Jeremy.

    The fags and dykes are trying to ruin the Australian way of life by pushing their homosexual agenda into our schools.

    If you let these perverts get married then they’ll take over our Christian communities by having heaps of babies and branch stacking our institutions with Green voting proponents of poofterism!!

    Wake up Australia!!!!

    /satire.

    Cheers.

  7. Urbancreature

    I’m glad gay marriage has majority support but the lack of it should never have been a reason to legislate against it. This doesn’t need to be taken to a referendum. We never held a referendum to bring in state equal opportunity laws, and there is nothing that needs to be changed in the Constitution. Just do the right thing pollies, regardless of the majority support, and pass the Green’s bill.

  8. maybe when parliament is represented by the next generation instead of crusty old men…

  9. Pingback: Femmostroppo Reader - June 26, 2009 — Hoyden About Town

  10. You’re right, they’ve got nothing.

    I certainly hope that this majority is reflected in a bigger turnout on August 1 at the Equal Love rallies in all Australian capital cities.

    I expect you’ll be there?

  11. I will now that I’ve heard about it. Link?

  12. ‘If the 1967 referendum had gone against finally giving aborigines the vote, it would still have been wrong.’

    The 1967 referendum did two things neither one giving Aboriginal people the vote. Firstly the yes vote gave the Commonwealth the power to make laws aimed at benefiting Aboriginal people. Secondly the yes vote gave permission for Aboriginal people to be counted in the Census. Prior to 1967 Aboriginal people already had the vote. Most states had given Aboriginal people the vote by the late 1950’s. The yes vote for the Census meant that for the first time Aboriginal people were counted in the Census and Government was able to get a better picture of what was occurring and better direct funding towards health and education etc. Also by being placed on the Census Aboriginal people were able to fully receive citizenship rights like all other non-Indigenous Australians. That’s the short of it just thought I’d point it out.

    In relation to gay marriage .. well it should be legal. Simple as that. My friends has just travelled to South Africa to marry his partner. You heart correctly. To South Africa where gay marriage is legal.

  13. South Africa is a pretty cool place.

  14. “Not even close. The majority does not have the right to discriminate against the minority, full stop. If the 1967 referendum had gone against finally giving aborigines the vote, it would still have been wrong.”

    No, people have the right to decide what they are prepared to tolerate in their own society. I could not give a rats if gays were allowed to marry or not – I simply do not care either way and if given a vote on it I would probably support it. But to rule out the voice of the people in what they want in their own society is a bit totalitarian to me.

    ps. – at work the other day the topic came up and most of those present were not in favour. Interestingly, the subject of ‘equality’ was addressed with the statement:

    “What inequality? – every man is free to marry a woman and every women is free to marry a man”.

    I had not considered this type of logic before but it seemed to be the popular justification against gay marriage.

  15. I’m gay myself, so this is brilliant news. I can’t tell you how many gay/transgender friends of mine have committed suicide, inflicted self-harm or sunk into depression since I first came out and joined Australia’s gay community- I can tell you that every one of them came from a conservative family.

    Granting marriage isn’t mere symbolism. It has practical effects to do with things such as taxation etc. But it has important symbolic effects as well- it shows gays that they are perfectly normal and the way they were born is respected by the law.

  16. “No, people have the right to decide what they are prepared to tolerate in their own society. “

    They don’t have the right to have the government discriminate against others on the grounds of gender.

    ““What inequality? – every man is free to marry a woman and every women is free to marry a man”. “

    That’s a pretty stupid construction, since you have to separate the genders to make that case for “equality”.

    The fact is that I, a man, am permitted by the Marriage Act to marry Jane Smith. Kate Jones, a woman, is prevented by the Marriage Act from marrying Jane Smith. I am allowed to do it because I’m a man; she’s prevented because she’s a woman.

    That’s discrimination on the grounds of gender.

    Why were those at your work opposed to equality for gays?

  17. Ironically, my (gay) marriage celebrant was the only one there who was a professed christian, and he met his partner on a christian camp. They got married in Canada, and Australia automatically recognises Canadian marriages, yet they’re not legally married here – weird huh?

  18. “No, people have the right to decide what they are prepared to tolerate in their own society”

    Yes, and maybe we should bring back slavery.
    I mean if that’s the sort of society the majority want, then who cares what the slaves might think.

    “But to rule out the voice of the people in what they want in their own society is a bit totalitarian to me.”

    No, what is totalitarian is one person or one group of people dictating who another person or another group of people are allowed to have relationships with.

    ““What inequality? – every man is free to marry a woman and every women is free to marry a man”.

    Yep, and before inter racial marriage was legalised Im sure there were tools saying stuff like “What inequality – every black man has the right to marry a black woman…”

  19. I don’t know. The definition of marriage argument seems at least interesting – in that religious conservatives have been quite radical in their minimalist observation of the biblical definition. ;-)

  20. Responded but was ‘moderated’ out.

    Oh well….

  21. If it gets moderated it will still usually usually be published still after a bit.

    I’ve had stuff under moderation and then published within about 5 minutes.

  22. You’ll have to repost, I have no idea what comment you mean.

  23. Pingback: There is a fringe benefit… « Thinkers’ Podium

  24. Pingback: What did you do when they were fighting for equality? « An Onymous Lefty

  25. Society is nothing but an aggregate of families. Those models of so-called families that work against the perpetuation of society, like gay couples and such, are cancerous cells to our civilization, unworthy individuals lacking the basic generosity that every other animal has towards its kind. Gays spread sicknesses, extend moral relativism and turn intimate matters into political ones, mixing in a sentimental demagogy public and private interests.

    It’s not only that gays don’t deserve any privilege or positive discrimination, but also that they have to be set apart and treated as a barbarian movement, since it exalts instincts, regards pleasure as an almost unlimited affirmation of the will and, finally, promotes self-destruction of the species through self-denial of sexual characters.

  26. That was parody, right?

    “Those models of so-called families that work against the perpetuation of society, like gay couples and such, are cancerous cells to our civilization, unworthy individuals lacking the basic generosity that every other animal has towards its kind.”

    Hilariously stupid.

  27. “They’ve got nothing”? You cannot find any philosopher in the whole European Enlightenment supporting your point of view, and I challenge you to prove otherwise with any authority from that age of reason. Forget about d’Holbach, Montesquieu, Puffendorf, Shaftesbury, that shew in their works inner immorality of deviate sexual conduct. You won’t find any but Sade, that took a Tacitus’ quotation on Nero’s “homosexual marriage” to legitimate it historically. I call this hilariously stupid.

  28. That’s not an argument, that’s a magical incantation of names in the hope that it’ll wow people into thinking there must BE some kind of argument.

    Calling homosexuality “deviate” doesn’t make it so.

    And there are plenty of social injustices that the philosophers of the European Enlightenment overlooked or failed to adequately grasp, because they were products of their time.

  29. Mine is an argument of authority (“ad verecundiam”) and an answer to the “they’ve got nothing” claim. Since you appeal to the mob (“ad populum”), I appeal to the elite. Moreover, I appeal to the kind of elite you should agree with: atheists, secularists and enlightened men free from superstitions and critical towards tradition.

    You are also a product of your time, a product of feminism and queer theory, which are by-products of nihilism and relativism. Assuming that you know what justice is meant to be, you cannot claim for social justice from your position. Your ideas on society are wrong, thinking of it as a matter of anarchic consensus and not as an entity with its own natural rules.

  30. Again, those are not arguments.

    And clearly the “elite” to whom you defer were not “free from superstitions”. They just had fewer than their contemporaries.

  31. “Your ideas on society are wrong”

    No. Your ideas are wrong.

    I can see this is going to get somewhere fast.

  32. Pingback: Applauding Punch - Pure Poison

  33. Pingback: The most important civil rights fight of our generation – SATURDAY 1PM FEDERATION SQUARE « An Onymous Lefty

  34. Pingback: The politicians don’t want equality. Time to show them THAT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH « An Onymous Lefty

  35. Pingback: No wonder their support is fading « An Onymous Lefty

  36. Pingback: National Marriage JUST FOR US day « An Onymous Lefty

  37. Pingback: It’s absurd that in 2009 we have to do this – but we really do « An Onymous Lefty

  38. Pingback: Some liberal media – Pure Poison

  39. Pingback: Marriage Equality Rally photos (Melbourne) « An Onymous Lefty

  40. Pingback: When spite is also expensive « An Onymous Lefty

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s