With a complete collapse in public support for their position, and no arguments remaining undemolished, the homophobic lobby that wants to see gay people discriminated against by our parliaments indefinitely has only one hope left – the short-term cowardice of unprincipled politicians who are easily bullied by fanatical bigots. Politicians who need to know that a clear majority of Australians stand for equality and fairness.
So August 1 will be a National Day of Action in support of marriage equality. It will be held during the ALP’s triennial national conference, when the governing party revises its national platform so that it is a “modern, up to date document”. It will also be in support of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill that is currently before parliament.
In the meantime, supporters of fairness and justice on this issue are urged to make submissions – even short submissions no longer than a blog comment – to the Senate Inquiry into the Bill. The homophobic bigots who get a kick out of limiting other people’s rights certainly will be.
Please take a few moments to have your voice heard.
It’s time this basic issue of social justice and equality were resolved.
78 responses so far ↓
Richard Ryan // 12 July, 2009 at 11:24 am
WHAT about equality for the 100,000 products of conception extracted from their mothers each year in Australia, who speaks for the foetus in this country.
Jeremy // 12 July, 2009 at 11:33 am
Nice try, but you’re not dragging this off-topic. Go away.
Private 'Baldrick' Tom // 12 July, 2009 at 11:51 am
Good lord, Richard. You could at least have waited until Jeremy wrote a post regarding abortion. Pathetic.
Turtle // 12 July, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Yeah sure let them get married if thats what they want. Legal marriages for gays. They can have all the legal marriages they want. Mass gay weddings of thousands if they like.
But we all know they really wont be real marriages. Gays can have legal marriages but only a man and a woman can have a real marriage.
Private 'Baldrick' Tom // 12 July, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Why? What makes a marriage between opposite sexes more meaningful than one between the same sexes?
Turtle // 12 July, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Yeah right. Whats the difference between a fake Rolex watch and a real Rolex watch. They both tell the time dont they?
Jeremy // 12 July, 2009 at 12:38 pm
In what way is a gay marriage a “fake” marriage?
(Waits with bated breath to find out which of the really, really stupid “gay marriage is not real marriage” lines Turtle comes out with. Will it be the “only marriages with kids count as real marriages so we should prohibit old people from marrying”? Who knows. That’s what makes it so EXCITING.)
Turtle // 12 July, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Nice try Jeremy.
It’s about intrinsic value. Supporters of gay leagal marriage wont understand. It’s like the wind – you cant see it – but we know it’s there.
Chasy // 12 July, 2009 at 1:16 pm
That is possibly the weakest and stupidest argument against gay marriage I’ve ever read.
If that’s what we’ve got in opposition, I’m surprised that it hasn’t been legalised already.
Turtle // 12 July, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I am not arguing against legalised gay marriage.
I have no doubt gay marriage will be legalised.
All I am saying is that to society it just wont be of the same value as a marriage between a man and a woman.
Private 'Baldrick' Tom // 12 July, 2009 at 1:53 pm
What are the chances that if this were America, late 1960s, that Turle would be applying this same logic and reason to oppose interracial marriages?
1:1, I’m guessing.
Abu Chowdah // 12 July, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Don’t forget to post something on this over at Pure Poison. Those guys and/or their fans are always dropping in to various blogs to call people “faggots” and other vernacular terms of endearment. Apparently if you disagree with them, you’re gay. Anyway, I’m sure they’d be happy to muck in and help out.
fred // 12 July, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I think in a way, turtle is right.
The labor government is passing legislation that gives gay relationships equal legal status, as I understand it de facto relationships fall under the marriage act given time, all that is left is the words used to describe the union.
The truth of the matter is most people couldn’t care less, if they want to use the word marriage go for it. Marriage as an institution has changed it’s meaning. The majority of marriages in this country are now performed by civil celebrants, religion is no longer an issue.
So really it doesn’t come down to the words but how the relationships is viewed by others. Having the union classed as a marriage doesn’t mean the same sex couple will gain the trials, tribulations, joys, social standing and problems that comes with a relationship between a man and a woman. That I think is Turtles point. Gay couples will still have the issues that come with same sex relationships.
I suspect it is going to be a very hollow victory; but why not give it a go; surly a couple pledging to act for each other for life (or until the whim changes) is better than one night stands be it between gay or hetrosexual couples.
Turtle // 12 July, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Nice attack against me Private Baldrick Tom. The implication that I am a racist and everything.
A bit of adivse… Good to play the ball and not the man and all that.
Richard Ryan // 12 July, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Post something on this, over on Pier’s blog—-it will make his day! Probably will say it’s all Rudd’s fault, as with everything else, he blames on Rudd.
Private 'Baldrick' Tom // 12 July, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Turtle, I’m not implying that you’re a racist. I’m saying that the arguments against same-sex marriage almost identical to those against interracial marriage. That is, both arguments are equally ludicrous.
Turtle // 12 July, 2009 at 4:09 pm
If they are equally ludicrous why is it that interacial marriage is legal and gay marriage isn’t legal.
Real marriage is between a man and a woman be they white, black, yellow or brown.
Richard Ryan // 12 July, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Marriage! Is any intimate union in today’s society, such as, woman to woman, man to man, and of course for breeding purposes,woman to man. What’s the big deal!
Jeremy // 12 July, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“Those guys and/or their fans are always dropping in to various blogs to call people “faggots” and other vernacular terms of endearment.”
What? Where? You mean commenters sometimes get away with being bigots?
“If they are equally ludicrous why is it that interacial marriage is legal and gay marriage isn’t legal.”
Because the bigots conceded one so they could concentrate on discriminating against the other? Who knows. Or cares. The point is that they were both supported with equally empty appeals to “tradition”.
“Real marriage is between a man and a woman be they white, black, yellow or brown.”
Why?
Michael // 12 July, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Because !
Turtle // 12 July, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Why is it nicer to be out and about on a sunny day then an overcast day.
Like I said intrinsic. I cant explain it Jeremy. It’s how it is however.
stewie // 12 July, 2009 at 7:26 pm
‘It’s like the wind – you cant see it – but we know it’s there’
Well, some people know there is a giant rabbit nearby which is their friend, but nobody else can see it. There are myriads of beliefs that require nothing more than ‘I know it is so’. This can establish a position, but does not constitute debate.
Marriage, pairing, bonding, loving are changeable things depending on your culture, society and circumstances. Historically, marriage did get defined by producing offspring and a joining of families into kinship through the betrothal. As the nature of society and such change it follows that marriage and what it means changes. The view that marriage is an institution only a man and a woman can be part of is fundamentalism.
Why should homosexual people want to be part of an institution that evolved from a heterosexual pairing? Why not? A public and ceremonial announcement and certification of love and commitment means a great deal to many people. It is not necessary for many others.
If we hold true to the ideal that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality, then it does follow that homosexual people should be allowed to become married. However it does contradict an earlier societal definition of what marriage was about – procreation. However procreation is not compulsory in marriage and does not in itself define marriage.
I keep being reminded of a bit from Monty Python’s life of Brian though, where the PFJ are debating
Stan: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But you can’t have babies.
Stan: Don’t you oppress me.
Reg: Where’s the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
irichc // 13 July, 2009 at 1:47 am
“On the other side, if the Affection towards private or Self-Good, however selfish it may be esteem’d, is in reality not only consistent with publick Good, but in some measure contributing to it; if it be such, perhaps, as for the good of the Species in general, every individual ought to share: ’tis so far from being ill, or blameable in any sense, that it must be acknowledg’d absolutely necessary to constitute a Creature Good. For if the Want of such an Affection as that towards Self-Preservation, be injurious to the Species; a Creature is ill and unnatural as well as thro this Defect, as thro the Want of any other natural Affection. And this no-one wou’d doubt to pronounce, if he saw a Man who minded not any Precipices which lay in his way, nor made any Distinction of Food, Diet, Clothing, or whatever else related to his Health and Being. The same would be aver’d of one who had a Disposition which render’d him averse to any Commerce with Womankind, and of consequence unfitted him thro ILLNESS OF TEMPER (and not merely thro a DEFECT OF CONSTITUTION) for the Propagation of his Species or Kind.”
Shaftesbury
Jeremy // 13 July, 2009 at 9:18 am
So – infertile people, such as post-menopausal women, should be prevented from marrying by the government because Shaftesbury thought propagation of the species is paramount?
Idiotic.
Christian // 13 July, 2009 at 10:02 am
I love how bigots like Turtle always purport to speak on behalf of “society”. Like they know exactly what everyone else in the country is thinking (no doubt from polling a half dozen of their equally bigoted friends).
Its the same garbage Pauline Hanson used to roll out about the “silent majority”. Problem was the “silent majority” never amounted to more than 10% of the voters (except in Queensland of course).
As for the procreation argument thats ludicrous these days considering loads of same-sex couples are having children and loads of heterosexual married couples are choosing not to have children. How does one assess the “intrinsic value” of the relationships in such circumstances? Why assess the “intrinsic value” at all?
irichc // 13 July, 2009 at 10:37 am
Jeremy:
They shouldn’t be prevented from it. First off, because doing it would bring about more trouble than benefits; and in the second place, because they are just an exception, and law doesn’t care about trivial or residual cases. For the same reason, law cannot turn a mere exception into a constituting rule. Marriage wasn’t made for infertiles, like welfare state wasn’t made for rich people, even though they are not usually excluded from it.
Thus, there is an essential difference between accidentally infertile couples and homosexual ones, which are infertile by definition. In law we speak about the appearance of a good right (“fumus boni iuris”). There is not such appearance in those unions that are naturally unable to reproduce themselves. As for old couples, we face a problem of limits that the law prefers to ignore, since it doesn’t create any moral conflict. Nevertheless, the conflict EXISTS when we look at the other side of the limit, that is, on how old you have to be to access marriage or when does sexual maturity start. Even more so, IT ALSO EXISTS when you try to change radically marriage’s social function.
Otherwise the reasoning could be as follows: If marriage doesn’t have anything to do with reproduction, then it can be argued that it doesn’t have anything to do with sex neither, since it’s mainly about “feelings” and “love”. Therefore, we shouldn’t ask ourselves about sexual maturity when referring to marriage and, thus, kids must be able to marry, as far as they are able to love.
Jeremy // 13 July, 2009 at 10:57 am
“Marriage wasn’t made for infertiles, “
It wasn’t made for “love”, either, which goes to show that the meaning and definition of marriage has changed a lot over history.
“Thus, there is an essential difference between accidentally infertile couples and homosexual ones, which are infertile by definition.”
So are post-menopausal couples.
“Even more so, IT ALSO EXISTS when you try to change radically marriage’s social function.”
It involves two people committing to each other exclusively for life. That does not require them to be of opposite genders. The social function of such unions is not limited to there being offspring.
“If marriage doesn’t have anything to do with reproduction, then it can be argued that it doesn’t have anything to do with sex neither,”
No-one’s arguing that. Many marriages have something to do with reproduction, but that doesn’t mean it defines marriage. Far more – almost ALL – marriages involve a sexual relationship between the parties; it’s a much more essential part of the institution. How would society cope with “marriages” where sex is prohibited by the law?
In any case, kids who are not capable of forming the level of consent required for sexual intercourse are CERTAINLY not capable of forming the level of consent required for marriage.
Private 'Baldrick' Tom // 13 July, 2009 at 11:05 am
irichc-Children are not allowed to marry not because of their sexual development, but because of their emotional development. They are not psychologically and emotionally mature and cannot give informed consent; thus, they cannot get married.
Also, if you are suggesting that the difference between gay couples and infertile couples is that gay couples have ‘chosen’ to be in infertile relationships, then you must agree that if a married woman undergoes tubal ligation (‘tubes tied’) and later divorces, than she is not allowed to remarry.
irichc // 13 July, 2009 at 11:23 am
Of course marriage wasn’t made for love, but it ALLOWS love to happen. Society wasn’t made for arts neither, but there is not any kind of art without society.
Post-menopausal couples are not infertile by definition, but by the pass of time. And it’s not as impossible to think of an old woman being pregnant as to think of a pregnant man. Plus, if we forbid marriage in these cases, we wouldn’t allow many widows to marry again, which would be unfair.
“It involves two people committing to each other exclusively for life.” Why two and not three? Why people and not just mammals? If I live with my father my whole life, am I married with him? Etc. etc.
“Far more – almost ALL – marriages involve a sexual relationship between the parties”. Almost! Can I use the exception against you like you did with me before? Then, are you going to exclude from marriage those who are not interested in sex?
Reproduction DEFINES marriage. Law forbids incest not only for the sake of moral considerations, but also -and especially- for avoiding an ill offspring.
SB // 13 July, 2009 at 11:26 am
Turtle:
In fact most people seem to understand that this is a basic issue of equality before the law, as this poll, and this one demonstrate.
I would have thought that supporters of marriage would be campaigning to have more people tying the knot.
Private 'Baldrick' Tom // 13 July, 2009 at 11:32 am
“Reproduction DEFINES marriage.”
In that case, you will agree on what I wrote before; straight women who are infertile by choice should not be allowed to marry.
Jeremy // 13 July, 2009 at 11:36 am
“Of course marriage wasn’t made for love, but it ALLOWS love to happen.”
You don’t think gay couples can love each other?
“Post-menopausal couples are not infertile by definition “
You have a different understanding of menopause than I have, then.
“Why two and not three?”
Show me how you resolve the issues with consent when you have more than two people – say one partner wants to add another to the marriage, and the other doesn’t. What then? How do you divide marital assets when one person divorces more than one other partner?
The problems with polygamy are practical. I’m yet to see any sensible proposal to resolve them.
Gay marriage, in comparison, is very straightforward to administer – you treat the parties exactly the same as in a heterosexual marriage.
“Why people and not just mammals?”
Because – even if their brains were developed enough to form it – animals can’t express consent. Unless you’re Dr Doolittle, of course.
“Almost! Can I use the exception against you like you did with me before? Then, are you going to exclude from marriage those who are not interested in sex?”
No. I’m not trying to exclude consenting adults from demonstrably workable marriages, you are.
How would society manage marriages where the participants were prohibited by law from sleeping with each other? Quite different from couples choosing not to have children, which is not against the law.
And in any case, the “but children will marry” furphy falls apart on the grounds of inability to consent, as pointed out by Tom.
“Reproduction DEFINES marriage.”
That’s just stupid – many marriages do not involve reproduction, and much reproduction takes place outside marriage. Reproduction hasn’t “defined” marriage for a long time, if it ever did.
irichc // 13 July, 2009 at 11:39 am
I didn’t see your text, Private, but I’ve answered it partly. It’s not true that kids could be emotionally mature while they are phisically unmature and, though, able to marry. Unless you live in India, a six years old kid won’t be allowed to marry, no matter how mentaly mature he or she is. In law we call it an indestructible presumption (“iuris et de iure”).
Finally, infertile couples that choose to be this way are, no doubt, the ones that less deserve marriage. But there is still a very important difference between being infertile by definition and being so by accident. In this last case you can already have an offspring that could benefit from your marriage.
Lynda Hopgood // 13 July, 2009 at 12:17 pm
irichc – if you are actually a lawyer, remind me never to retain your services.
That was the biggest load of rubbish I’ve read in a while and yet another (and equally pathetic) attempt to justify the unjustifyable.
And the “accidental” and “intrinsically” infertile argument is fatuous, as well as being deeply offensive. And also NOT TRUE.
Not every newly-out gay person is between the age of 15 and 25. There are plenty of people who finally acknowledge their true sexuality after years of marriage and after they have had children. Meaning there are many, many people who are ALREADY actively parenting children in gay relationships. That’s before we get to the gay and lesbian couples who have used both natural and assisted ways to procreate.
In other words, there are already many children being raised in gay relationships, and as far as I can tell, the world hasn’t ended.
The ‘what about teh children?’ argument has never resonated with me on any level, because I have seen this so-called ’social experiment’ up close. If there is one difference between children from same-sex households and children from heterosexual households it is that those from same-sex households are more self-assured, more confident and more accepting of other people and their differences. Not a bad thing at all, I wouldn’t have thought.
Give me another reason why gay people shouldn’t marry …
GavinM // 13 July, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“If there is one difference between children from same-sex households and children from heterosexual households it is that those from same-sex households are more self-assured, more confident and more accepting of other people and their differences. ”
Let’s not get too carried away here Lynda, I seriously doubt that this would be due to the fact they are being brought up in a same sex household.
I’m all for gay marriage, but lets not insult peoples’ intelligence by guilding the lily too much.
Richard Ryan // 13 July, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Gore Vidal on being asked if his first sexual experience had been heterosexual or homosexual, said, ‘I was too polite to ask’.
Keri // 13 July, 2009 at 1:51 pm
“But there is still a very important difference between being infertile by definition and being so by accident. In this last case you can already have an offspring that could benefit from your marriage.”
I’m sorry, are you saying that people who are infertile “by accident” are not infertile “by definition”?
Keri // 13 July, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“It’s like the wind – you cant see it – but we know it’s there.”
We can measure the wind. We know why the wind occurs. If you throw substance in it’s path, you can see wind. It can be defined.
Why don’t you just call your “argument” what it is? Prejudice and distaste. Nothing more, nothing less.
And laws should NEVER be founded, implemented and stay in place on something so flimsy and fundamentally unfair.
“I want to continue to oppress you because I’ve just got this feeling“
Yobbo // 13 July, 2009 at 2:57 pm
It wasn’t made for “love”, either, which goes to show that the meaning and definition of marriage has changed a lot over history.
Marriage was “made” to ensure safety in numbers.
The natural state of being is for the dominant male in the area to have his pick of women. This works great for the dominant male but it’s a bad deal for the rest of the males.
So in the animal kingdom or in primitive human societies they’d just up and leave. So then what you’d have is a bunch of small groups of people fighting each other over resources and women.
Marriage was a construct that enabled large numbers of males to live in close proximity to each other without killing each other.
Lynda Hopgood // 13 July, 2009 at 6:52 pm
GavinM – I wasn’t gilding the lily; I was speaking from the experience of working with a variety of children from different backgrounds in the setting of a camping ground.
We had school groups in (both public and private); we had church groups in; we also had a ‘pink parents’ group in a number of times. The difference in behaviour was STARK. In the pink parents group, over the course of the weekend there were no – I repeat no – squabbling of any kind amongst the children, who ranged in age from babies to 17 year-olds. They were universally polite, friendly and happy children. They came from different geographical areas, different socio-economic backgrounds and different “back stories” for their parents. The only thing these children all had in common was they were being raised in same-sex households.
Compare and contrast the worst behaved groups (from private schools) and the most fighting (public schools). The church groups were universally well behaved as well, I must say, bar the odd disagreement.
But at the end of every pink parents camp, I marvelled at how well the children behaved and how well they interacted with each other, regardless of all the other differences the children had. I can’t explain it, I just saw it and am reporting it to you here.
Turtle // 13 July, 2009 at 8:08 pm
“In the pink parents group, over the course of the weekend there were no – I repeat no – squabbling of any kind amongst the children, who ranged in age from babies to 17 year-olds. ”
What kind of parents send “babies” to a camp?
“Pink Parents” apparently.
Lynda Hopgood // 14 July, 2009 at 8:08 am
Turtle – it was a camp for children and their parents. Why would you take some of your children and not others?
EvShow // 14 July, 2009 at 10:17 am
Lynda, Turtle is clearly a baffoon, and a biggot, I wouldn’t worry about trying to reason with him / her.
SB // 14 July, 2009 at 11:04 am
EvShow: Pot.Kettle. Black.
GavinM // 14 July, 2009 at 12:08 pm
“Compare and contrast the worst behaved groups (from private schools) and the most fighting (public schools)……..I can’t explain it, I just saw it and am reporting it to you here.”
Oh I’m pretty sure I can explain it Lynda, it’s called only seeing what you want to see based on your pre-determined ideology, you’ve pretty well summed up every stereotype there is — spoilt brats from private schools, undisciplined rabble from public schools, polite kids from church groups, and the golden children from same-sex families….Give me a break.
Kids are kids — they learn their behaviour from the attitudes of those around them, it doesn’t matter if they are from same-sex families or not, what matters is how their parents nurture them, and I’m sure that there are plenty of well balanced kids from hetero families.
I have no problem with allowing same sex marriages, nor do I have any problem with same sex couples having children — there are many heterosexual couples that shouldn’t be allowed to be parents, just as I’m sure there are same-sex couples that shouldn’t be.
EvShow // 14 July, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Ok SB, how am I a bigot? which group do i advocate discrimination against?
Maybe instead of just obsessing over trying to insult me whenever you have the chance you should actually address some of the arguments I have made.
I mean clearly we disagree on most things, but I at least point out why you’re a racist, you on the other hand just make claims about me resorting to ad hominem and strawman and this that and the other, without ever backing it up with anything.
Pretty poor attempts really buddy, but i suspect you dont have the intellect for it.
SB // 14 July, 2009 at 1:31 pm
EvShow, you are bigoted against logic, reason and common sense. You are nothing more than a pathetic figure of fun. you are living proof that empty vessels make the most sound.
In fact, you haven’t explained why you think I’m racist (although you often make that claim). The reason for this is that you have no evidence of this. I’ve never bothered asking for your reasons because it would be futile. I might as well ask the cat!
The only function you serve is to make Iain Hall look like an eloquent genius.
Turtle // 14 July, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Ok EvShow, how am I a bigot? which group do I advocate discrimination against?
Oh gay people wanting be married you say?
No I don’t. I actually say why not let them get married and that I think legalised gay marriage will eventually come to be.
I just say that it will be considered to be of lesser value then hetrosexual marriage.
Femmostroppo Reader – July 14, 2009 — Hoyden About Town // 14 July, 2009 at 11:20 pm
[...] What did you do when they were fighting for equality? [...]
Keri // 15 July, 2009 at 12:02 am
“I just say that it will be considered to be of lesser value then hetrosexual marriage”
By whom, Turtle?
Turtle // 15 July, 2009 at 7:12 am
By shopkeepers.
By train drivers.
By people in the park.
By people working in bottling plants.
And by the overwhelming majority of straight married people.
Jeremy // 15 July, 2009 at 9:09 am
By bigots whose discriminatory, prejudiced views will die out as they do. Just like those of the “women shouldn’t vote” crowd, or the “interracial marriage is wrong” crowd, etc.
It’s time « An Onymous Lefty // 15 July, 2009 at 10:35 am
[...] July, 2009 · Leave a Comment The media are beginning to take notice of the National Day of Action for Marriage Equality. The Sydney Morning Herald covers it here and even David Penberthy has something vaguely sensible [...]
reb // 15 July, 2009 at 1:00 pm
“All I am saying is that to society it just wont be of the same value as a marriage between a man and a woman.”
What, because there isn’t a c**t involved?
reb // 15 July, 2009 at 1:01 pm
“By people working in bottling plants.”
They’re the ones I’m really worried about..
EvShow // 15 July, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Turtle, do you believe that a gay relationship or a gay marriage is of less value than a straight relationship or marriage?
Jeremy // 15 July, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I think Turtle made it clear that that’s what he/she thinks.
And that that unsupported, indefensible, inexplicable prejudice is the reason he/she wants the government to continue to discriminate against gay people.
rainne // 15 July, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Ah, the ’some people think’ argument. It’s not Turtle that’s bigoted, you understand, ze just thinks society will be. And that’s just the way it is. Like a sunny day. Or something.
Personally I’m happy to let Turtle [try and] prove hir point. Let’s finally legalise gay marriage and see what happens.
And, hey, reb, putting aside the offensive terminology for a second (and really, let’s), you do know there are gay women, right?
Turtle // 15 July, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Sure society is bigoted.
‘We’ aka society look at fat middle aged Aussie blokes and pretty Filipino women and say silently to ourselves…… mail order bride.
We look at Millionaire business men married to 25 year old blonde floozies and we say silently to ourselves……. gold diggers.
We all know that these aren’t real marriages. We just don’t say it aloud.
EvShow // 16 July, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I think maybe you should stick to speaking for yourself Turtle.
Not everybody gives that much of a shit about other people relationships, and the fact that 60%+ of the population support gay marriage would indicate they don’t view gay relationships as inferior in anyway, that’s just you and a minority of bigots.
stewie // 16 July, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Teenage, mutant and ninja? Decidedly not. I think it was this philosopher fella Thomas Kuhn, on the nature of paradigm shifts – that it usually takes the generation cohort with the preceding meme to shuffle off the mortal coil before a new one gets accepted. Who knows, in the future marriage as an institution may change beyond all recognition? Imagine people actually married to their jobs or significant possessions, robots or aliens. Those future generations are so morally suspect…..
Turtle // 16 July, 2009 at 8:22 pm
“Not everybody gives that much of a shit about other people relationships”
Yeah only us bigots and these people give that much of a shit about other peoples relationships.
http://www.equallove.info/node/1
EvShow // 16 July, 2009 at 9:20 pm
huh? where are they talking about other peoples relationships?
Turtle // 17 July, 2009 at 7:21 am
You’re not serious are you? You’re joking aren’t you?
Oh I am dealing with Evshow…. the one who asked at about comment 55
“Turtle, do you believe that a gay relationship or a gay marriage is of less value than a straight relationship or marriage?”
That was after I had written throughout the thread…..
“But we all know they really wont be real marriages. Gays can have legal marriages but only a man and a woman can have a real marriage.”
“….I am saying is that to society it just wont be of the same value as a marriage between a man and a woman.”
“Real marriage is between a man and a woman be they white, black, yellow or brown.”
“….I think legalised gay marriage will eventually come to be. I just say that it will be considered to be of lesser value then hetrosexual marriage.”
It seem’s that us bigots aren’t the only people unable to accept another persons views.
Jeremy // 17 July, 2009 at 7:41 am
Depends what you mean by “accept”. Your prejudiced, bigoted views – and desire to have them imposed via legislation on gay people – are as hard to “accept” as the views of someone who doesn’t think indigenous Australians should have the right to vote.
It’s impossible to respect such a view.
Since it’s difficult to believe anyone could really be so stupid as to be unable to see how empty such prejudices are, I guess the others on this thread Turtle are trying to help you come to a position that won’t embarrass you in the eyes of your grandchildren.
EvShow // 17 July, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I asked for clarification Turtle because you felt it necessary to ask why you’re regarded as a bigot?
Asking that question after previously stating your views on marriage i was left thinking:
You’re not serious are you? You’re joking aren’t you?
But then I realised I am dealing with the person who for an entire thread stated his bigotted views on gays and lesbians but then seemed confused as to why he was regarded as a bigot and why minority he is discriminating against.
So now that we’ve cleared up that you’re an idiot as well as a bigot, why don’t you point out where in the link you provided people are carrying on about the relationships of others.
Turtle // 17 July, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Evshow you are obviously one of thoose people who just has to add complexity to everything.
It appears that if it is a really simple concept (ie. my belief that real marriages are between a man and a woman who love each other) you cant grasp it.
Thanks for your contribution but I dont want to engage with you any more on this topic thanks.
Jeremy however I have to take you to task about your comments….
“Your prejudiced, bigoted views – and desire to have them imposed via legislation on gay people ”
I am not trying to have anything imposed via legislation. I actually said in one of first comments….
“I am not arguing against legalised gay marriage. I have no doubt gay marriage will be legalised. “
EvShow // 18 July, 2009 at 12:41 am
Well Turtle I never wanted to engage with you in the first place, but you asked a question so I responded.
Maybe next time if you dont want to engage with people shoulnd’t address them.
EvShow // 18 July, 2009 at 12:44 am
However I grap the concept, you’re a bigot. It’s not a complex concept.
Now if that’s all, maybe you should go back to judging people and their relationships as you’re obviously unable to enjoy life without feeling more legitamate than others. Fuck this blog attracts some morons some times…
Turtle // 18 July, 2009 at 7:29 pm
“Turtle is clearly a baffoon”
“you’re an idiot as well as a bigot”
“… you’re a bigot.”
“….. you’re obviously unable to enjoy life…”
“Fuck this blog attracts some morons….”
and I am the judgemental one.
Jeremy // 18 July, 2009 at 7:32 pm
They’re just insulting you on the internet.
You’re calling on the government to discriminate against other people in one of the most basic and important ways possible.
I don’t think you have the moral high ground.
irichc // 20 July, 2009 at 3:01 am
Jeremy, your moral is made of vaseline, I’m afraid. You don’t have any idea of what moral is and means. You don’t know what a right is, and you just can’t figure out what love looks like and which are its limits. You are just a romantic making a profession of faith in the infallibility of human passions. You seem to ignore almost everything about sin, wrong, dishonor and ridiculous, but you still sound arrogant.
EvShow // 20 July, 2009 at 3:57 am
Jeremy, to be fair on Turtle, he isnt calling on the government on this one. He just wants to keep the discrimination going after the ban is lifted by having a general attitude in society. The same attitude that sees gays and lesbians being bashed and also self harming and killing themselves because they aren’t in “proper” relationships, or have “proper” thoughts like Turtle does.
irichc: do you smoke rocks or something?
Jeremy // 20 July, 2009 at 9:09 am
Hilarious, irichc. You tell me that YOU can determine what “moral” and “right” and “love” and “sin” and “wrong” etc are, and that if I disagree with you I just “don’t have any idea” what they mean.
And you call ME arrogant!
Richard Ryan // 20 July, 2009 at 10:38 am
A marriage licence! Is this a permit to breed?
Rod // 22 July, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Turtle says gay marriage is ignored by:
“…the overwhelming majority of straight married people.”
Sadly, he’s wrong — massively wrong.
Evidence?
http://www.coalitionforequality.org.au/GalaxyPoll-AntiDiscrimination.pdf
Must suck to see those numbers.
Margin of error is 2.9%
Rod // 22 July, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Oh and these numbers too:
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/Galaxy200906.pdf
Where can Melbourne Club members find a safe space? - Pure Poison // 23 July, 2009 at 10:54 am
[...] sure – if they don’t mind joining a group so marginalised that they’re still prevented by indefensibly bigoted legislation from getting [...]