The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Sarah Haywood]

The several thousand year old book is far from the only thing people use to reason opposition. Just sayin'.

If bigotry required a solid reason, it wouldn't exist.

Very True

 

[Roo]

There's always an element of derision and disgust when same-sex marriage is discussed - not so much here but generally in the wider world - so here's a nice little story from yesterday, and a personal one to me.

The back story: My cousin (B in the images below) had a civil partnership ceremony in 2010 with her girlfriend (R). Since then same-sex marriage has been legalised in the UK, and they've talked about changing their civil partnership to a marriage but never had any firm plans to do so.

At least, that's what my cousin thought.

Her other half invited myself and other family members to their wedding reception a few months ago, but kept the whole plan a secret until 3 hours before the ceremony was due to start - and let her know through Facebook:

Once B had understood R wasn't joking, this was her response:

They had a small, fairly informal ceremony with only immediate family members present - they still count their big day as their civil partnership - but had a big party in the evening with about 100 people there, the guestlist being as secret as the ceremony. Suffice to say my cousin spent the whole afternoon in a state of stunned happiness.

 

[zzz_pt]

@Roo I "liked" the FB post.

Nice story.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Just when you thought that the arguments against same sex marriage couldn't get any dumber, Barnaby Joyce swoops in with this gem - if we legalise same sex marriage, then South East Asian nations will see us as decadent and refuse to buy our cattle, kicking our economy when it's already down:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-...e-seen-as-decadent-by-asian-countries/6595936

 

[Imari]

Just when you thought that the arguments against same sex marriage couldn't get any dumber, Barnaby Joyce swoops in with this gem - if we legalise same sex marriage, then South East Asian nations will see us as decadent and refuse to buy our cattle, kicking our economy when it's already down:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-...e-seen-as-decadent-by-asian-countries/6595936

I'm surprised he didn't throw in that the SEA countries might be afraid of catching the gay from eating Australian meat. Everyone knows that the gay is transmitted through delicious meat products.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm surprised he didn't throw in that the SEA countries might be afraid of catching the gay from eating Australian meat. Everyone knows that the gay is transmitted through delicious meat products.

Barnaby was never the brightest politician. Right now he's keeping to the party line of listening to what the public wants, then doing exactly the opposite. Over 70% of Australians support gay marriage, with the conservative voters providing the only real resistance. Nevertheless, the conservative power brokers within the government insist that a silent majority will reject gay marriage. I'm a little concerned as to how they have found a majority where 70% represents a minority, but these are the same power brokers who claim that children of single mothers are more likely to commit violent crimes and abuse drugs.

 

[Imari]

Barnaby was never the brightest politician. Right now he's keeping to the party line of listening to what the public wants, then doing exactly the opposite. Over 70% of Australians support gay marriage, with the conservative voters providing the only real resistance. Nevertheless, the conservative power brokers within the government insist that a silent majority will reject gay marriage. I'm a little concerned as to how they have found a majority where 70% represents a minority, but these are the same power brokers who claim that children of single mothers are more likely to commit violent crimes and abuse drugs.

All politicians are idiots. It's a job requirement.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I know. But ours are dumb even by the standards set by others.

 

[G.T.Ace]

There's always an element of derision and disgust when same-sex marriage is discussed - not so much here but generally in the wider world - so here's a nice little story from yesterday, and a personal one to me.

The back story: My cousin (B in the images below) had a civil partnership ceremony in 2010 with her girlfriend (R). Since then same-sex marriage has been legalised in the UK, and they've talked about changing their civil partnership to a marriage but never had any firm plans to do so.

At least, that's what my cousin thought.

Her other half invited myself and other family members to their wedding reception a few months ago, but kept the whole plan a secret until 3 hours before the ceremony was due to start - and let her know through Facebook:

Once B had understood R wasn't joking, this was her response:

They had a small, fairly informal ceremony with only immediate family members present - they still count their big day as their civil partnership - but had a big party in the evening with about 100 people there, the guestlist being as secret as the ceremony. Suffice to say my cousin spent the whole afternoon in a state of stunned happiness.

Call me Richard D'aaawwwkins, that was friggin' cute. <3
Please send my congratulations.

 

[LeMansAid]

Just when you thought that the arguments against same sex marriage couldn't get any dumber, Barnaby Joyce swoops in with this gem - if we legalise same sex marriage, then South East Asian nations will see us as decadent and refuse to buy our cattle, kicking our economy when it's already down:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-...e-seen-as-decadent-by-asian-countries/6595936

I don't think it's a dumb argument at all. It's very valid to assess who we are exporting to, and whether or not we can afford to risk losing their money. I think that Australia should have itself economically structured completely different to how it currently is, but how it currently is relies on these types of exports - it relies on necessary "evils".

If we were to pick and choose our import/export (and surrounding) practices based on morals and ethics, gay marriage may factor, but would be all but inconsequential in the analysis against other considerations. For me at least.

However, as it turns out, this one would be win/win from my point of view. I don't have any desire to eat cow, and certainly no desire to send cattle off on a cruel journey only to far too often be met by even greater cruelty. I also have no desire to limit what gay people can do compared to the rest of society, and no desire to be held to ransom by other countries.

The irony is that many of the other quoted arguments are actually seriously stupid.

 

[niky]

South East Asia doesn't mind who it does business with. On one hand, you have Thailand, the trans-sexual capital of the world, on the other, the Philippines, the most rabidly Catholic nation on Earth, and the only place where divorce is still illegal, and then you have Singapore, playhouse of the East, and Malaysia and Indonesia, which are about as fundamentally Islamic as you can get without being Arabic.

And none of them refuse to deal with any of the others... or any nations in which gay marriage is illegal.

The very fact that no one has declared war on Thailand will tell you the idea is bollocks.

-

If you're Israeli, however, you're persona non grata in Malaysia, supposedly... a warning given to those travelling into the country with an Israeli visa stamped on their passports. (not quite sure if this is still true)

 

[LeMansAid]

The very fact that no one has declared war on Thailand will tell you the idea is bollocks.

It's not that simple though. Appearance counts for a lot with many countries. Peoples are all too willing to be technically hypocrites as long as the hypocrisy is not blatantly exposed. In another irony, Barnaby Joyce is only serving to bring attention to the matter, in turn possibly encouraging certain countries to feel the need to protect their "honour" should gay marriage laws be changed. What might have been fobbed off lightly may now be more likely to get the attention he would purportedly want to avoid.

Similar to the still recent executions of the Australian drug dealers in Bali. The more that attention was brought to the their plight, the more steadfast the Balinese officials were, I feel.

 

[Imari]

I don't think it's a dumb argument at all. It's very valid to assess who we are exporting to, and whether or not we can afford to risk losing their money.

Except that you're not dealing with countries, you're dealing with companies who are almost entirely motivated by how large a profit they can make. Any company of reasonable size will not be turning down a cheap source of quality meat just because that source happens to reside in a country that has legalised gay marriage, something that the source itself has absolutely no control over.

Look at how large companies to this day continue to source products from countries that are war torn, use child labour, etc. It just doesn't matter. It possibly should, but from a commercial perspective whether the country a product comes from has legalised gay marriage or not is highly unlikely to even rate as a discussion point when managers are discussing where to source from.

It's very valid to assess whether or not we can afford to risk losing money, and the assessment is that anyone who is dumb enough not to buy a product because of a random marriage law in it's country of origin would have eventually found some other excuse not to buy anyway. Money from those sorts of people was never on the table.

 

[LeMansAid]

Except that you're not dealing with countries, you're dealing with companies who are almost entirely motivated by how large a profit they can make.

As stated above, I think it's very easy for people to remain hypocrites while it's not exposed. If it became "a thing" with a population, the companies would do what they have to do to protect their empire. That could include making a political/religious statement of the kind he's pointing to.

As also stated above, BJ is quite possibly crippling his own argument. I don't buy for a second that his stance genuinely has our economics at heart, but I also don't buy the idea that the logic is patently flawed.

 

[niky]

There is a tiny bit of truth in the idea, but again, given that the ASEAN free trade zone includes the trans-gender capital of the world... no.

Governments will willingly overlook cultural and religious divides, but will do some very silly things over political ones.
Gay marriage just isn't anywhere on the list of things that they will blacklist another country over. Ergo: "Your country, your rules."

Now if we're talking drug mules, drug dealers and execution of foreigners... then that's something governments in this region are likely to get riled up about. But even with the word wars over the Bali 9 over the past few months, trade has not even shown the slightest hint of stopping between Australia and the ASEAN.

 

[Imari]

As stated above, I think it's very easy for people to remain hypocrites while it's not exposed. If it became "a thing" with a population, the companies would do what they have to do to protect their empire. That could include making a political/religious statement of the kind he's pointing to.

It could do, if any of the countries concerned cared even a little bit about the marriage policies of other countries. It works for things like blood diamonds (sort of), but there's not a chance in hell that it'll work for motivating Australia towards a certain marriage policy.

Were hypothetical Country A to refuse trade with Country B based on the fact that Country B allows gays to marry, what do you think Country B's response would be? Would it be:

1. To amend their laws to appease Country A?
2. To tell Country A that it's none of their business, and that they can stick it sideways up their tailpipe?

Hell, even countries like North Korea who are desperately in need of external trade have massive reservations about letting other countries interfere with their internal policies. To pretend that Australia would let other countries opinions of their marriage policy sway them is a red herring.

Other countries will not refuse trade on such a basis, nor do their opinions on Australia's marriage policies matter in the slightest.

 

[LeMansAid]

Now if we're talking drug mules, drug dealers and execution of foreigners... then that's something governments in this region are likely to get riled up about. But even with the word wars over the Bali 9 over the past few months, trade has not even shown the slightest hint of stopping between Australia and the ASEAN.

I meant that the more that they felt worked against (especially publicly), the more determined they were to continue with the executions.

There is a tiny bit of truth in the idea, but again, given that the ASEAN free trade zone includes the trans-gender capital of the world... no.

New things matter most. If no-one's talking about it, nothing to save face over.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it's unlikely in the extreme that any fears would be realised, but at the same time I think it's hardly the worst rationale to run with in fishing for reasons to oppose gay marriage. I prefer to call stupid - stupid, and disingenuous - disingenuous. I think that this is far more disingenuous than it is stupid, especially if the aim is to rally the anti-gay marriage troops. Logical fallacies aren't called simply fallacies for no reason.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

South East Asia doesn't mind who it does business with.

Of course they don't - the idea that South East Asia won't trade with Australia if Australia legalises same-sex marriage is little more than a thinly-veiled excuse from the government (or at least elements within it) to go against public desires and avoid legalising same-sex marriage because it's not in line with the ultra-conservative voting blocs. Our government is one that is increasingly only interested in governing for a small minority. It may seem fairly benign when we're talking about attempts to sabotage a private member's bill, but they're also cracking down on freedom of the press, using Royal Commissions for political gain, and covering up the abuse of asylum seekers by calling it "national security".

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm a little concerned as to how they have found a majority where 70% represents a minority, but these are the same power brokers who claim that children of single mothers are more likely to commit violent crimes and abuse drugs.

Children in single parent families aren't more likely to commit violent crimes or abuse drugs?

 

[DK]

I'd imagine it's a bit more nuanced than that, Johnny. This graph below compares poverty rates across different family types from 2008, taken from this article. I'd imagine these poverty rates have since worsened due to the global recession.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Children in single parent families aren't more likely to commit violent crimes or abuse drugs?

The senator in question said that children of single mothers are more likely to commit violent crimes and abuse drugs. While there may be some statistical correlation between the children of single parents and violent crimes and/or drug abuse, correlation does not imply causation - and the senator's comments were taken as an attack on anyone who did not uphold the traditional family unit.

This is the same senator who claimed that legalising same-sex marriage would pave the way to polygamy and beastiality, and who also claimed that victims of domestic violence were in no position to judge what counted as "domestic violence", and that sometimes a man was completely justified in using a headlock to control a woman.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The senator in question said that children of single mothers are more likely to commit violent crimes and abuse drugs. While there may be some statistical correlation between the children of single parents and violent crimes and/or drug abuse, correlation does not imply causation - and the senator's comments were taken as an attack on anyone who did not uphold the traditional family unit.

This is the same senator who claimed that legalising same-sex marriage would pave the way to polygamy and beastiality, and who also claimed that victims of domestic violence were in no position to judge what counted as "domestic violence", and that sometimes a man was completely justified in using a headlock to control a woman.

Your post above did not distinguish between correlelation and causation, you appeared to present the correlation as false...and it's not.

I believe the senator is also correct about polygamy. It's the next natural evolution in marriage. There is no logical reason to exclude polygamy as a recognized form of marriage.

 

[Danoff]

I'd imagine it's a bit more nuanced than that, Johnny. This graph below compares poverty rates across different family types from 2008, taken from this article. I'd imagine these poverty rates have since worsened due to the global recession.

No, because the definition of "poverty" changes over time to keep a certain percentage in it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Your post above did not distinguish between correlelation and causation, you appeared to present the correlation as false...and it's not.

And you're neglecting the precise choice of words that were used. The senator did not say that the children of single parents were more likely to commit crimes and abuse drugs - he specifically said that the children of single mothers were more likely to. It was an attack on non-traditional family units, especially against women who consciously chose to be single mothers.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And you're neglecting the precise choice of words that were used. The senator did not say that the children of single parents were more likely to commit crimes and abuse drugs - he specifically said that the children of single mothers were more likely to. It was an attack on non-traditional family units, especially against women who consciously chose to be single mothers.

And the children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes and abuse drugs. Your original post that I quoted didn't say anything about attacking non-traditional family units, hence my query.

 

[Imari]

I believe the senator is also correct about polygamy. It's the next natural evolution in marriage. There is no logical reason to exclude polygamy as a recognized form of marriage.

Except that the way the senator presented it was designed to trigger the "but that's wrong" factor that many people have towards polygamy. He's not arguing that polygamy is a fine and natural thing that should also be included, as can be seen from him pairing it with bestiality. Like his argument against trade, it's a red herring designed to appeal to people's fears rather than their reason.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with polygamy, although there are more legal hurdles to sort out with a multiple marriage than there are withe same sex marriages. Same sex marriage can be implemented simply by saying "same sex couples can get married", where as multiple marriages require extra legal frameworks to deal with the additional circumstances that can arise.

There's no real reason not to implement same sex marriage, but there is reason to at least wait and sort out how some things will work for multiple marriage instead of just handballing it to the first family court judge who has to deal with a multiple divorce.

 

[Eric Demory]

I feel good to announce that I am officially gay. It feels good to announce here, but I'm not sure how to announce it to my family. Especially my parents. If only I could go on vacation for a week, text them on the first day of the trip, and come back without any worries. If only it were easy as that.

But, this change didn't happen with a reason. I became bisexual about a year ago after watching so many animes where it's a strange occurance that almost any guy character is at least cute. Then, just last Saturday, I considered that I was officially gay without a certain event causing this alteration. Out of the blue, I'm gay and I'm happy to say it. Looking at it, it really isn't a big deal. It's just something that happens. Now, I'm just waiting for this cute boy to respond on Zoosk.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Except that the way the senator presented it was designed to trigger the "but that's wrong" factor that many people have towards polygamy. He's not arguing that polygamy is a fine and natural thing that should also be included, as can be seen from him pairing it with bestiality. Like his argument against trade, it's a red herring designed to appeal to people's fears rather than their reason.

They're actually two different people - the senator, Bernadi, who made the comments about the children of single mothers and a minister, Joyce, who made the comments about trade. But they come from the same faction of the same party; the kind of faction that appeals to voters who would never dream of voting anything other than conservative. It shows the general attitude within elements of the party; the kind of elements that wield considerable power.

 

[niky]

I feel good to announce that I am officially gay. It feels good to announce here, but I'm not sure how to announce it to my family. Especially my parents. If only I could go on vacation for a week, text them on the first day of the trip, and come back without any worries. If only it were easy as that.

But, this change didn't happen with a reason. I became bisexual about a year ago after watching so many animes where it's a strange occurance that almost any guy character is at least cute. Then, just last Saturday, I considered that I was officially gay without a certain event causing this alteration. Out of the blue, I'm gay and I'm happy to say it. Looking at it, it really isn't a big deal. It's just something that happens. Now, I'm just waiting for this cute boy to respond on Zoosk.

Well, if you were unsure before, you could still be bi.

And no, coming out is never easy, but it's a lot easier than it used to be!

 

[Eric Demory]

Well, if you were unsure before, you could still be bi.

And no, coming out is never easy, but it's a lot easier than it used to be!

It is possible I'm in a gay attitude that's lasting longer than usual.