No wonder their support is fading

Some obvious responses to Bill “Canute” Muehlenberg:

So Who Actually Wants Same-Sex Marriage?

Ooh! Ooh! I know! Anyone who believes in equality and believes that secular governments should not discriminate on the grounds of gender without a very good reason; and recognises that “certain religious groups like their arbitrary definition” is not such a reason. Anyone who can see why it’s a bad idea for governments to start picking certain religious beliefs and imposing them on people who don’t share them. Anyone who’s followed the gay marriage debate at all and actually considered the pissweak arguments that opponents have put forward against it.

For example, Muehlenberg’s lame “but this particular homosexual person doesn’t want to marry!” line in this piece, which he appears to think somehow proves something. Bill, mate, I can find you plenty of heterosexual people who don’t want to marry, either. Do you think that’s an argument against heterosexual marriage?

And –

Anyone who dares to question this agenda is treated as a heretic or worse.

Since none of these critics have managed to come up with a single decent reason for the discrimination continuing, you’re treated as prejudiced buffoons, yes. But not because of the side you’re taking – because of your inability to sensibly justify your position. (I understand why, since I doubt very much there are any good justifications for it; but surely a sensible person would, on constantly finding their “arguments” demolished, reconsider their position.)

As for:

…a major reason why they want marriage is not so much to be like heterosexuals, or because they want to abandon their more free and promiscuous lifestyle, but because of its symbolic value.

That the government will not treat them like second-class citizens any more? Well, duh.

In other news, the victims of every other form of discrimination in history also wanted it to end because they were sick of being seen and treated as second-class citizens. Surprisingly, they didn’t realise that the fact that they didn’t want second-class status any more was actually somehow an argument that they must endure it forever.

(I did like Bill chucking in that “free and promiscuous lifestyle” bit, as though those gay people who want to get married and commit to one person are exactly the same as the gay people who don’t want to get married and formed his example earlier.)

Elsewhere, Piers Akerman is reduced to clumsy metaphors to explain his “truth and definition” of marriage:

At the simplest, a marriage is reflected in the relationship between a nut and bolt. A single nut is not much use. Neither is a bolt, but the two used in tandem as they are designed to be used, form an effective fastener. Two nuts don’t make it, nor two bolts. Try to put them together and they don’t marry.

Sorry, what was that about Piers’ relationship with Andrew? Oh, I see, he means the hardware “nut” and “bolt”.

Unfortunately, he precedes that limited example by explaining how “marry” in English also means the joining of two things inseparably even when they’re the same (like timber) and thereby undoes his entire definition argument.


(While we’re there, you’ve got to admire someone who commences a definition debate by claiming it’s not about “semantics“.)

And mate? It’s not a “small but heart-broken homosexual lobby” who think the government should remove the discrimination – it’s a clear majority of Australians. Nor is it just homosexuals who are “outraged” by the injustice and protested last weekend.

Man, that was easy. Pity it’s the best they can do. And it’s a pity that the present Prime Minister continues to side with these cretins and their indefensibly weak “arguments” for bigotry, condemning gays and lesbians to a few more years of unnecessary suffering until the pointless, stupid discrimination ends and their equality is finally recognised.

But it will be. No-one can hold back that tide – not Muehlenberg, not Akerman, not even Rudd. And if their screeds look idiotic and cruel now – imagine how appalling they’ll look to history.

UPDATE: Added a retort to his “we’re treated as heretics” silliness.


14 responses to “No wonder their support is fading

  1. Homosexuals have always had the same rights as Heterosexuals when it comes to Marriage.

    Homosexual men have the right to marry the woman of their choice, just like heterosexual men do.

    And funnily enough, many of them have historically exercised that right, for whatever reason.

    What you are asking for is an entirely new right, not simply “equality”.

    That said I agree there is no reason why it should be illegal for same sex couples to marry. But to say this is discrimination is incorrect.

    What you are requesting is a change in the definition of marriage. That’s fine and all, but the hysterics are really out of place.

  2. And btw Lefty, I’m not trying to evade your filter, the new login came up automatically when I logged into my own blog for the first time in Months..

  3. It continues to surprise me otherwise reasonably intelligent people running the stupid “but they’re not discriminated against: they can always marry a person of the opposite sex!” line.

    Yobbo. The law will let me marry a woman. It will not let a woman marry a woman. Why? Because she’s a woman, and not a man.

    And what do we call the government telling someone they can’t do something they could if they were the opposite gender? Sexual discrimination. QED.

  4. The simple solution is to allow same-sex couples to go to a registry or whatever and declare themselves partners, in some formalised sense. Then, you get the government to give them all the same rights that hetero couples have. This isn’t the same as marriage, but strictly speaking, most churches etc, aren’t going to ‘marry’ same-sex couples anyway. It’s not clear to me why same-sex couples would even want marriage, in its traditionals sense. There’s no excuse for the discrimination, however, so the laws should be updated, and I think this can be done in a way that sidesteps the objections of fundies.

  5. They want complete equality. They should accept nothing less. Why should they? Fundies don’t “own” marriage.

    “Registration”? What, like a dog?

    “Marriage” means a lifelong binding commitment between two adults. Gays and lesbians are just as capable of being husbands and wives as the rest of us. They are as entitled to use those words – and have governments use those words – as anyone else.

    Let’s be clear – the only point in not calling their marriages “marriages” is to imply they’re somehow lesser. They’re not.

  6. “Marriage” means a lifelong binding commitment between two adults.

    Yes, but it means a lot of other things besides. In some places, it originated simply as a means of exchanging women in chattel-style arrangements. The idea of marrying for love is relatively recent in the west, and still doesn’t exist in much of the world. The romantic aspects of marriage are therefore secondary to the other things.
    Now, people can call their partnership whatever they like, but they can’t force anybody else to recognise it. I can stage a mock baptism for my kids, but it means nothing to the relevant authorities (in this case, the church). So the real issue is to abolish discrimination in practical terms, since the state will never have the real power to alter marriage at the symbolic level anyway.

  7. The romantic aspects of marriage – commitment, support etc – are largely the point of the institution today, though.

    It’s not about “forcing” anybody else to recognise it. It’s about the government not discriminating unjustly.

    Fundies can continue to pretend that a gay marriage is not a “marriage” all they like; the rest of us will call it what it is. The important thing is that the government stop discriminating against the gays and lesbians. Insofar as it’s going to get involved in regulating marriages at all, it must do so fairly and equally.

    Same sex couples deserve full marriage equality, and yesterday.

  8. THR, no one will be “forced” to recognise anything. The fundies and social conservaties can still run around saying ‘marriage is only between a man and a woman’ as much as they please – it just won’t matter.

  9. The fundies and social conservaties can still run around saying ‘marriage is only between a man and a woman’ as much as they please – it just won’t matter.

    What I’m suggesting is that there are some separate issues here. On the one hand, you have the rights of couples to be treated equally under the law. This is largely a pragmatic matter, and should occur immediately. On the other hand, you have the symbolic dimensions of marriage, and these are not entirely in the hands of the state, and nor should they be. This latter issue is more tricky, and I think the movement for equal rights may be diverted into a whole range of red herrings by focusing on this, and missing the pragmatic issues.

  10. “On the one hand, you have the rights of couples to be treated equally under the law.”

    I agree.

    We have a Marriage Act. At present it specifies gender. There is no good reason for it to do so. It shouldn’t. That should be fixed, now.

    “Registration” and all these other half-arsed compromise “solutions” miss the point, which is that there should be no difference between the way the law regulates heterosexual or homosexual couples. All the compromises do is make excuses for retaining the unjust inequality.

    “On the other hand, you have the symbolic dimensions of marriage, and these are not entirely in the hands of the state, and nor should they be.”

    They’re a total red-herring. What marriage means to individual citizens has nothing to do with the State, and nothing to do with this debate. Fundies are welcome to think a gay marriage not a marriage as much as they’re welcome to think an interracial marriage not a real marriage or women not equal to men or whatever.

    The issue is full equality before the law, and that means not buggerising around setting up a separate but equal (but not really equal) regime for homosexual people, but simply removing the discrimination in the present legislation.

    ie – full marriage equality.

  11. Lynda Hopgood

    The real issue at play here, at least for the fundies, is their absolute refusal to accept homosexual people as equal in any way at all.

    Their imaginary friend in the sky said being homosexual was a grave sin and they deserve to be put to death; their ministers and priests have told them it is a grave sin; their parents told them it was a grave sin. Homosexuals agitating for a change in the law they can deal with because it is easy to dismiss; the so-called “normal” people supporting them, though, is the thing that really sticks in their craw.

    Blimey, it must be absolutely heartbreaking to see all these sinners agitating for the laws to change so that they no longer fully endorse that religious-based belief system. It’s normalising wickedness! You will all go to Hell! Shit, maybe I will too because I didn’t do enough to stop it!

    No doubt the worst days of their lives so far were when various parliaments across Australia have passed legislation that removed discrimination against homosexuals. Each new piece of legislation – every rung these filthy homosexuals move up the social ladder – is an affront to everything they believe in, everything they have ever been told by every significant person in their lives.

    How DARE we not believe what they believe!

  12. Pingback: Femmostroppo Reader – August 12, 2009 — Hoyden About Town

  13. Pingback: Femmostroppo Reader – August 12, 2009 « My Hot Topics

  14. UPDATE: Added a retort to his “we’re treated as heretics” silliness.

    If you have the stomach to peruse Bill’s website, you’ll find that the vast majority of his articles open with four paragraphs or so of shrieking hysterics about persecution of Christians and how he will soon be sent to the gulags for speaking “the Truth”. It’s extremely tedious.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s