Marriage is one man and one woman

May 12, 2012 53 Comments
By

This is another one privately posted by me as James Higham, not as an OoL admin. And again – you make of it what you will.

I came to it via Boiling Frog who commented on Cranmer’s dilemma and I see Raedwald is into it too:

In an almost rational-defying move by the Advertising Standards Authority it is investigating Cranmer for carrying an ad on his blog on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage, which I reproduce above. Apparently complaints have been made that it is ‘offensive and homophobic’.  

Here are some signatures so far to the petition.  I don’t have the right to put the ad up at OoL because that would require a meeting and vote – we’ll do it if people are interested – but we can certainly run such things at our own blogs.  After this, I’ll put together a banner for my sidebar.

Many people have said it many times before and I’ve been no different – marriage is between one man and one woman and the government’s attempts to buy into this and redefine marriage are to be met with a resounding Arkell v Pressdram.

I have no interest in what they call this thing between same sex – they can go and do as they wish but when it comes to 1. redefining it as “marriage”, 2.  insisting we do too, 3.  using the big stick on us for not supporting this lunacy and 4. involving children, then that’s one step too far.

They know where they can stick it.

 

53 Responses to Marriage is one man and one woman

  1. May 12, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    I’ve put it up at mine. The Streisand effect is called for, I think.

  2. May 12, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    Nice to know that freedom of speech only goes one way. :sad:

  3. May 12, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    Brigid O’Connell VICTORIA’S deputy chief psychiatrist has joined forces with doctors lobbying the Federal Government to ban same-sex marriage.

    Apparently this is a big issue downunder:

    link to heraldsun.com.au

    • May 12, 2012 at 11:32 pm

      That will be useful — doctors say it is a ‘health risk’. Doctors — everyone listens to them. Think of how they demonised tobacco. :roll:

      (One has to register to read the article, which I didn’t do, so that was all I picked up.)

      I don’t understand why civil partnership isn’t enough. Although this is an attack on Christian society, it is highly unlikely that a Muslim, Sikh or Hindu gay marriage ceremony would ever take place.

      • Voice of Reason
        May 13, 2012 at 5:24 am

        The interesting thing is that a historian has apparently found evidence that the Catholic Church performed wedding of two men and two women until the 1400′s.

        • James Higham
          May 13, 2012 at 6:36 am

          I just KNEW you’d pick up on that, VofR. Yes, I saw it too and it was an abomination [in ecclesiastical terms] which had no basis in scripture – ditto the Borgias and various other corruptions, e.g. the selling of indulgences.

          There are some excellent articles on the net about how the RCC was hijacked in the early days, which basically gave the gnostics their “in”.

          • Voice of Reason
            May 13, 2012 at 7:36 pm

            Most religious practices are either stolen from previous religions (Easter, Yule, Virgin Birth, Resurrection), or made up for political convenience.

      • May 13, 2012 at 6:45 am

        Churchmouse, for some reason the Herald Sun’s paywall comes down if you go to the article via Google. Paste the entire first paragraph into Google and it your browser should mark the link in the results as already visited, but if you click it you’ll get the whole thing.

        • May 13, 2012 at 8:41 pm

          Thank you! Shall go off now to read. :)

      • James Higham
        May 13, 2012 at 6:55 am

        I don’t understand why civil partnership isn’t enough.

        Precisely – they are wanting legitimacy for something unnatural. I use the term “unnatural” advisedly, in the strictly biological sense. It’s a poop chute, nothing more. It’s not meant for anything else.

        However, if two males wish to do that, then that’s their funeral and it’s not anyone else’s biz to deal with it – it’s between those men and their Maker.

        But the moment they talk children, that’s not on and whoever the PTB are should step in and prevent it, on the grounds of protection of the child.

        By PTB, I mean those appointed by the people, not those who’ve wrested power and it needs to be based on the benign traditions of that nation which all have a say in at the age of majority.

        This immediately brings in the problem of the Muslim oppression of women on an institutional basis and that many of those women just accept their lot.

        So obviously, as we don’t like that but prefer the Judaeo-Christian tradition which has served us so well, there is a dilemma.

        Or are people proposing that there be no protection of children whatever?

        • May 13, 2012 at 8:12 am

          Precisely – they are wanting legitimacy for something unnatural. I use the term “unnatural” advisedly, in the strictly biological sense. It’s a poop chute, nothing more. It’s not meant for anything else.

          Agreed, to a point. Mine is, metaphorically speaking, clearly labelled ‘Exit only’. But if whatever’s natural is our defining criteria then why not polygamous marriages? That monogamy is our default setting is pretty debatable when so few people live entirely monogamous lives and many can’t even maintain it when still in a traditional marriage. Incidentally, this is nothing to do with Islam as I’m thinking of both genders and western cultures, though I’m not sure that one Muslim bloke with up to four wives necessarily constitutes oppression of women any more than what the Marquess of Bath has been doing for years does.

          And again, I must point out that the protection of children is completely irrelevant to the discussion of gay marriage since being unable to marry is not an obstacle for them right now. Even if the argument is correct it’s simply not relevant to the question of marriage. If there was someone claiming that there’s psychological evidence that gays are, say, poor pilots would you be saying that’s a reason to prevent gay marriage or would you be saying it’s a reason to stop them having a light aircraft licence?

          • May 13, 2012 at 9:05 am

            I think we all know why civil partnership isn’t enough for the vociferous few – because it’s not about ‘equality’ at all, it’s about conquest.

            • May 13, 2012 at 10:25 am

              That’s true to an extent, and when those who desire conquest demand that James be forced to recant his religious beliefs and recognise their definition of marriage and even have it celebrated in his church you can be sure that I’ll be among those telling them that freedom of speech goes two ways and doesn’t trump property rights anyway, so they can’t have their way. Actually I’m sure that there are some demanding that right now but since the ‘no gay marriage’ group is larger the ‘let us pooves get married in St Peter’s baslica’ mob aren’t as easily heard. But I’m an equal opportunities argumentative bastard :oops: and will certainly tell them to STFU as and when the need arises. :mrgreen:

    • May 13, 2012 at 6:37 am

      Strange one, that. He seems to be asking for something which is not legal to be made not legal. Hey, let’s ban heroin while we’re at it. :roll:

      As far as the arguments wrt raising children, parthenogenesis not being a feature of homosexuality I’m not convinced it’s really that much of an issue. Plenty of gay couples don’t want to marry to have kids, and understand that their scope for having kids is reduced because they’re gay, and all the means by which they potentially could have a family such as IVF, adoption etc. are as available right now as they would be if they were married – something that the state’s deputy chief trick cyclist doesn’t seem to have mentioned. Many just want to marry because they love each other and don’t see why a legal definition derived from a particular religion should limit them to the verbally unwieldy status of being in a civil partnership.

      The way I see it is that marriage could and should be like a recipe. There is more than one recipe for, say, ANZAC biscuits. My wife puts sultanas in (and they’re bloody delicious) but I could throw one down the street and probably hit a few people who’d say that sultanas in ANZAC biscuits is heresy… heresy, d’you hear?! That’s despite there being no standard sultana-free recipe in the first place. Similarly there isn’t even a standard for heterosexual marriage, and I don’t see why there needs to be one. Why, James, should you (an Anglican, correct me if I’m wrong) be compelled to recognise as married a hetero couple who got married in a Catholic church, much less a couple who are a different religion and perhaps even worship a completely different god? They may be as hetero as you or I but the couple at an arnand karaj in a Sikh temple is surely no more married as defined by your holy book than a couple of girls or guys who get spliced at a secular venue or a Quaker hall to lend the occasion a more religious feel.

      At the moment the law says that you must recognise all kinds of arrangements from hippy dos on beaches to secular backyard jobs to the ceremonies of religions that are not only not your own but are not even Christian, and it says you must also treat those that enjoy that legal approval as being equally valid as a marriage ceremony that came straight out of the Book of Common Prayer. God wasn’t invited to mine and would have been asked to leave in the unlikely event he’d shown up (if he was sitting down quietly at the back so nobody even noticed then I suppose I can’t complain), and I’d have absolutely no problem in anyone who believes in him saying that means me and Mrs Exile don’t really qualify as being married. Fair enough, I’d say that lunatic in America who married a fairground ride or Romans who married their horses don’t qualify either. We’re all adults and can, or should be able to, agree to disagree.

      So why can’t have things where the legal definition of marriage is ended, leaving Helen and Joanna free to pick a date where they can pay too much for catering and you and anyone else who doesn’t agree free to carry on saying that it doesn’t count because the recipe has too many eggs and not enough sausage. Everyone else can carry on not really giving a rip.

      • James Higham
        May 13, 2012 at 6:41 am

        Plenty of gay couples don’t want to marry to have kids, and understand that their scope for having kids is reduced because they’re gay

        You were right up to that point. Of course it’s their biz what they do – two adults, by themselves, answerable to their Maker each one, individually.

        Not my biz, not your biz, not the governments.

        Bring children in though and we need to step in – there’s such a thing as cruel and inhumane treatment and that’s what bringing a kid up without his parents is – when it’s deliberately done, I mean. There is zero place for any unfortunate child with a gay couple of people – kids need proper families and I’m sure the majority view is that what’s more.

        • May 13, 2012 at 7:28 am

          But the presence or not of children has got absolutely nothing to do with marriage, gay or otherwise. As I said, and I think it bears repeating, homosexual couples cannot have children together naturally so hypothetically married gays that are determined to have kids – and they’ll bloody need to be determined – will need to resort to IVF/artificial insemination, adoption, surrogacy or similar. And critically for your argument and that of Prof George, that’s as possible now as it would be if the legal definition of marriage included gays or if there was no legal definition at all. Access to successful IVF depends more on luck and finances, adoption (at least here) is a bloody marathon whatever your sex or sexuality, and as far as I’ve heard the laws on surrogacy in any part of Australia have zero to say on the subject of marital status. The bottom line is that not being able to marry does little or nothing to stop gays from having families and raising kids, which makes it a poor argument against gay marriage even if all the evidence Prof George is on about is correct. If he’s right- (and since it changes nothing I haven’t bothered looking, though being one of many millions of completely normal people who were not raised in the standard man+wife nuclear family model I’m sceptical (interestingly the gays I’ve known mostly were raised in hetero/married households) – but if he’s right I could perhaps buy it as an argument to legislate against adoption by gay couples and similar restrictions on access to IVF etc. Wouldn’t stop it happening, of course, though it would reduce it to those who can afford to jump on a plane and get things taken care of elsewhere. But as an argument against gay marriage it’s entirely fallacious since the one does not require the other anyway.

          Incidentally, it’s not really a big deal Down Under except in that it’s another area where some see a touch of hypocrisy and politicking in our beloved, er, benighted Prime Mistress Gingery Dullard. It seems a bit much for an openly atheist PM who is herself happily unmarried to her partner (occasionally known as the First Bloke) and a mother of none to remain opposed to gay marriage, especially when her cabinet colleague Senator Penny Wong is openly lesbian and would like to marry her de facto. I’d probably disagree with 99% of what Penny Wong has to say and would look out the window if she said the sky was blue, but I can’t think of any sound reason for a legal block on her calling herself married (and having children certainly isn’t a sound reason because her de facto had their child via IVF last year). I suspect the real reason Jules is against it is the similar to the reason Obama is saying he supports it, and is to be found in the section of the papers that shows the ALP being 20 or so points behind the Coalition in the polls. Obama’s hoping to drag a few more Dems supporters to the polls later this year while Julia has already pissed off so many that it’ll be as much as she can do (actually probably more than she can do) to get them to forget it all in a year or so’s time.

          • May 13, 2012 at 7:45 am

            But the presence or not of children has got absolutely nothing to do with marriage, gay or otherwise.

            Excuse me and with the greatest respect, it has everything to do with it. Marriage, by definition involves procreation. Put a man and woman on an island and tell me that if you come back after two years, there’ll be no patter of tiny feet?

            Not only that but even if there’s no formal contract written in the bark of the tree, there’ll be a sense of commitment between the two and towards the child[ren].

            Certainly – and I agree with you – the presence of children has nowt to do with gays. That’s very true. But then again, theirs is not marriage – it’s civil partnership.

            Children though do have a habit of being born – uncanny how that happens and whether you go obliquely at it via IVF, look behind IVF and where did the seed come from? There was a human being on the end of that.

            There is so much Loretta to this whole argument:

            link to youtu.be

            About the argument downunder:

            but I can’t think of any sound reason for a legal block on her calling herself married (and having children

            I’ll give you one immediately – the good of the child, the right of the child to at least have a chance of growing up normally with its biological parents.

            No amount of fancy, fashionable lefty rhetoric undercuts that. Instead of selfishly thinking of herself, why doesn’t she look at the child?

            Because that type never ever looks at the child’s perspective. Just how many studies, how many doctor’s views [and this is currently N2 headline at the Herald sun, hence this post] are needed before people realize a child needs his parents?

            And the worst part, AE, is the fascist way the gay activists go about it:

            AAP A PSYCHIATRIST lobbying against gay marriage must explain why he should remain on the board of the state’s equal opportunity agency.

            link to heraldsun.com.au

            • May 13, 2012 at 9:26 am

              Excuse me and with the greatest respect, it has everything to do with it. Marriage, by definition involves procreation. Put a man and woman on an island and tell me that if you come back after two years, there’ll be no patter of tiny feet?

              You misunderstand me, James. When I say that marriage has nothing to do with the presence of children I mean that it is not a precondition either way. Marriage does not mean that there will be children and remaining unmarried is not a form of contraception. This goes regardless of sexual orientation. Let me illustrate by example: Mrs Exile and I are straight, married and have no children. Penny Wong is gay, unmarried and has a daughter. Even if you say that Penny Wong’s daughter is not really her daughter since her partner had the IVF and pregnancy you cannot get round the fact that Penny Wong’s partner is gay, unmarried and has a daughter. In saying that marriage involves procreation you are just thinking of what’s mainstream. I am talking about what’s actually necessary, which even before modern medicine was not limited to heterosexual sex. Whether procreation should be limited to heterosexual sex or at least heterosexual couples is not the same argument as whether homosexual couples should be able to describe themselves as married.

              About the argument downunder:

              “but I can’t think of any sound reason for a legal block on her calling herself married (and having children”

              I’ll give you one immediately – the good of the child, the right of the child to at least have a chance of growing up normally with its biological parents.

              You misquote me, mate. My parenthetical point there was that she already has a child yet cannot call herself married. The child’s welfare has nothing to do with there being a legal definition of marriage that excludes it being a couple of women, or a man and a couple of women ( :shock: ) or several women ( :shock: :shock: :shock: ) or a couple of guys. Please understand that I’m not saying here to hell with the welfare of the child (having not looked at the arguments there I am firmly on the fence anyway), I am saying that as things stand right now the law is no more concerned about kids being raised by gay couples than by straight couples. Yet it is concerned about how marriage is described in the Macquarie.

              Let me ask you this: if IVF hadn’t been invented, nobody put kids up for adoption and surrogacy hadn’t been thought of – basically if there was simply no physical way a gay couple could have a child – would it bother you if they called themselves married? I’m sure it would bother you if they strolled into your church and demanded to be married there, and rightly so – that’s an issue of property rights and since the church owns the building it sets the rules. But if they could call themselves married and you could say ‘No you’re not, you just think you are’ and there were not – and couldn’t be – any kids involved, would it bother you that these two are going round calling themselves married? Would it bother you that they found someone who agreed to do some kind of ceremony, service, whatever for them?

              And secondly, let me ask you that if your honest answer to that is no, it would not bother you, it’s only the issue of children that makes it a problem, then why are you focussing on gay marriage rather than gay adoption and gay access to IVF and surrogacy? You know, those things that already allow gay couples – gay, unmarried couples – who choose to do so the chance of a family. Because on the face of the target of your opposition seems to be the wording on a piece of paper that has zero practical effect either way on the thing you say you’re worried about.

              But it does make a very practical difference on whether someone I care a great deal about will one day be able to get married. Kids? Not on the agenda as far as I know, but if they decide they want them, which I suppose is a distinct possibility as two biological alarm clocks would be involved, then how does being unmarried stop them? Seriously, even if you did prevent adoption and IVF anyone with a working uterus who’s prepared to lay back and think of England can still have a child regardless of her sexuality. What do you want the state to do? Force all single mothers to take a dyke test, and anyone who fails has their kids taken into care on the grounds that a loving lesbian mother can’t possibly be as good for her kids as a baby-popping benefit machine with five kids by eight different fathers?

              And the worst part, AE, is the fascist way the gay activists go about it:

              AAP A PSYCHIATRIST lobbying against gay marriage must explain why he should remain on the board of the state’s equal opportunity agency.

              I kind of agree with them, though for different reasons. You might not be surprised to hear that I don’t think the state should have a board anyway. Being that there is one and we’re probably stuck with it I don’t think he should be kicked off, but the gay lobby has as much right to argue for it as the Prof has to argue for a legal definition of marriage that excludes them. For my money both arguments are straw men.

      • May 13, 2012 at 8:27 am

        a legal definition derived from a particular religion

        It’s not, though. It’s a definition which occurs at all times and in all societies as soon as we start making records. It has to be: it’s fundamentally about underwriting paternity and lines of inheritance while offsetting the risk and cost of childbearing for some women.

        Ditto Anzac biscuits, only without the childbearing etc. They are about preserving food rather than inheritance. The name has legally enforceable protection in Aus and NZ and relates to a standard recipe.

        I’m just silly enough to get in to a spat about the definition of marriage but only someone with a death wish would go near the sacred subject of Anzacs and start insisting that eggs are OK.

        The inclusion of sultanas may be delicious, but they are indeed heresy. Dessicated coconut, yep, but sultanas, no, not unless you can substantiate their use in WWI. You may call it an Anzac in the privacy of your own home (consenting adults and all that) but the name is legally protected and their formulation is strongly protected by custom and legal restrictions in the commercial arena.

        In short, an Anzac is like traditional marriage, allowing a little leeway according to what is available but built on bedrock ingredients which cannot be varied.

        • May 13, 2012 at 10:15 am

          It’s not, though. It’s a definition which occurs at all times and in all societies as soon as we start making records.

          Nobody’s saying it was ever mainstream – hard to imagine how we’d ever have got to 7bn people otherwise – but homosexual marriages have certainly been a reality in various places. China for one, and only a few hundred years ago. Ancient Greece and Rome too, obviously. I recall reading somewhere that the Spartans practically expected men to shag each other and thought you were a bit of a fairy if you didn’t, while bumping uglies with the girls was almost a case of “Really? Oh well, if you must, but do it inside and don’t frighten the horses, eh?”

          The name has legally enforceable protection in Aus and NZ and relates to a standard recipe.

          Not quite. It’s a bit like Hoover and hoovers. “ANZAC” is a legally protected term, and it’s safe to assume that Unibic who have the right to sell ANZAC biscuits commercially have their official (and sultana free) recipe. However, there’s no official recipe. You can make a pizza margherita at home and call it an ANZAC biscuit if you don’t mind getting a lot of strange looks for being the only one in the entire world. Realistically everyone seems to agree on coconut, oats, flour and a distinct lack of egg. The sultanas is a minority view (biscuit Lutherism, perhaps?) but probably one more common among people Mrs Exile’s age than in the previous generation.

          In short, an Anzac is like traditional marriage, allowing a little leeway according to what is available but built on bedrock ingredients which cannot be varied.

          Indeed, but that only moves the argument to how much leeway is a little? You’d say that sultanas is going too far while Mrs Exile would say otherwise, but you’d probably both say that someone who wanted to add sprinkles or choc chips to it is just weird. Similarly how much leeway do we give for the definition of marriage? Is love an essential ingredient? We’d probably both say so but there’s no law to stop a gay guy and a lesbian marrying each other just for appearances’ sake, even to the extent of having a wedding night leg over, and while there’d probably be at least some platonic affection there they’d each be getting their real physical and emotional loving somewhere else. Still married though, at least according to the law. So what’s that mean, we couldn’t call bullshit on that if we saw it? Or that we could but it makes no difference because the law doesn’t care whether marriage includes love?

          What it comes down to is that the legal definition is really quite arbitrary when you examine it in detail and that the reason we stick with it is simply because it suits the majority of us to do so. It’s had broader and narrower definitions in other times and places and if we could come back in a few hundred years we’d probably find it had changed again. I expect that most marriages would consist of a broadly similar proportion of each gender if that’s still what works best, but if some disease took out three quarters of one or other sex or something then I bet there’d be a big change. In the here and now I can’t see any reason why what works as a definition for me needs to be forced on you and vice versa. Providing nobody’s fighting and nobody’s property rights are infringed why can’t there be more than one definition? There’s certainly more than one kind of marriage already and the law makes us recognise them all as valid whether we agree or not, including any where both parties are as queer as a square grape and only pretending.

          • Jim
            May 13, 2012 at 10:20 am

            In the past if a gay guy and lesbian married, it would not be legal unless they actually did it with each other… failure to consummate would be a grounds for annulment. Of course, now that anyone can get a divorce for any reason, it doesn’t matter any more.

      • Voice of Reason
        May 13, 2012 at 8:08 pm

        Bingo! The obvious solution is to have the State not recognize marriage at all, but to have it do so to any civil partnership, which is more an issue of taxes and inheritance than anything else.

  4. May 13, 2012 at 12:36 am

    WTF?

    Yes, ASA re complete tossers in this case.

    But what is this one man one woman crap? What has the definition of marriage got to do with you or the government?

    If two or more consenting adults decide they are married and wish to publicly say so who are you to gain say?

    FYI 5 years ago I would have agreed with you but I had to actually think through a real case of a couple I knew and realised, as a libertarian, I shouldn’t be telling other people they couldn’t call ltheir relationship a marriage.

    Think before you post knee jerk attitudes.

    • Tattyfalarr
      May 13, 2012 at 2:21 am

      Just about anyone can call themselves “married” but that don’t make it so.

      Not under current UK State Law and not in line with more than a fair few religions.

      You might want to think a lot more about what exactly it is gay people are demanding. Because it sure it ain’t about purely, simply and only “calling” themselves “married”.

      Otherwise, they already would.

      To all intents and appearances though it seems to be about making Everyone Else call them “married”. By force, if necessary.

      That was always going to go down well, wasn’t it. What “libertarian” in their right mind accepts *that* ?

      So umm…think before you assume “homophobic” or “knee jerk” attitudes. ;)

    • James Higham
      May 13, 2012 at 6:38 am

      What has the definition of marriage got to do with you or the government?

      Completely agree and that would surprise some – it’s no business of government one way or the other. the status quo has always been that marriage is one man one woman so the government should butt out and leave it at that.

      • john in cheshire
        May 13, 2012 at 9:32 am

        James, I tend to agree with your arguments. I see this movement to change the definition of marriage as yet another salvo in the war against our Western civilisation. And as usual, the more the issue is argued, the more people have to take a position based on (almost) a gut feeling about what is right and what is wrong. It’s possible to put forward a cogent argument for allowing any variation of relationships to be regarded as marriage. And quite difficult to refute it, particularly where religion is a factor. But ultimately, I believe that people will make up their minds based on what they think is ‘right’. What I’m not sure of is whether society as a whole can be so corrupted and debased that they are incapable of discerning the difference; because that’s how we appear to be developing.

  5. Ian
    May 13, 2012 at 2:32 am

    So is it Mr and Mr? The postman could get confused.

  6. Sackerson
    May 13, 2012 at 7:55 am

    The paedophilia thing is a slur, I don’t believe gays are any more likely than straights to abuse children. Paul O’Grady defended vulnerable children valiantly when he was working for social services.

    But remember the OFFICIAL LEGAL definition of marriage as it still is this day in the UK:

    “Marriage according to the law of this country is the union of one man with one woman, voluntarily entered into for life to the exclusion of all others.”

    It’s exactly the same wording in all 3 variants of the ceremony in the register office:

    link to leeds.gov.uk

    • May 13, 2012 at 8:09 am

      Though the connection between gays and paedophilia is not even in question any more, statistically [see a number of posts on this], it is not central to this particular issue, which is based on two things:

      1. the right to call a civil union “marriage” within law, because it then conveys all sorts of unjustified rights;

      2. the presence of children.

      The paedophilia itself of course can’t be established within artificial gay “marriages” with children taken from their parents and given to the gays because it’s a new phenomenon and the lobby carefully does not keep such stats. It can very much be established within the gay community on the whole and let’s not go down that path again for the umpteenth time.

      However, doctors and psychologists have currently spoken out about the new issue of children being given to gay couples Downunder and it IS an issue, despite what AE maintains.

      VICTORIA’S deputy chief psychiatrist – and State Government-appointed equal opportunities champion – has joined forces with doctors lobbying the Federal Government to ban same-sex marriage.

      Twenty-two Victorian GPs, anaesthetists, obstetricians, palliative care specialists and psychiatrists, including Prof Kuravilla George, have joined 150 colleagues interstate to argue gay marriage poses a health risk to society.

      There you go. They wouldn’t have done that unless they’d seen it as a current issue which, of course, it is because it is yet again on the drawing board for parliament. Gillard, for all her appallingness, has at least stood firm on this matter … until now.

      The gay lobby thinks that if it just keeps applying pressure, Gillard will be got rid of and gay “marriage” can be put through by bought politicians. Just as with the EU, UN, Them, IMF and all the other tyrants – forcing something on people they neither want nor need.

      However, there are many of us who simply say NO – this aberration just will not be. ¡No pasarán!

  7. Greg Tingey
    May 13, 2012 at 8:29 am

    Utter complete RUBBISH and lies for that matter from just about everybody.
    Marriage is what the LAW defines it as.
    The bible is NOT inerrant, and people’s opinions change – I would remind people that said book of Bronze-Age goatherders’ myths endorses slavery.
    AT THE SAME TIME the “persecution” of Cranmer is disgraceful – it’s just the “offence” industry starting up again.

    If you’ll excuse the expression… bugger the lot of em!

    • May 13, 2012 at 9:35 am

      Greg – you have some very interesting views, let’s say. However, I’d defend to the death your right to have them.

      What I find amazing, stunning, is that we’re even having this debate. since when did we have to defend basic, intrinsic things like marriage and what it means? And in a similar way, there’s an article right now at the Telegraph about our soldiers – last count there were 1043 comments.

      I’m just staggered that any would think of abusing our soldiers in the streets or pubs. Is that insanity or what? Abuse our politicians, yes, for sending our troops where they shouldn’t be, certainly on the pretexts they’re sent but don’t abuse your actual defenders.

      That’s digressing a bit but the point is that there are just simple, basic things anyone normal should be supporting. It never used to be a problem. Now it seems to be. I’m seriously dazed reading some of the crap many come out with.

  8. John
    May 13, 2012 at 10:17 am

    I can’t be bothered to read the entire exchange between James and Angry Exile, but it seems that they are missing two points:

    1. If marriage is only for the purpose of procreation, then a man who loses his willy in an accident should never be allowed to marry. Since you are talking about the law here, sex changes have been legal for a number of years. Maybe you don’t want them to be legal – well, if a man who is married (to a woman) with children, and then decides to become a woman, would you take their kids away? What about a lesbian who becomes a man, would they be allowed to marry?

    2. Gay adoption is better than no adoption. Should single people be allowed to adopt? What if two gay men decided to adopt individually and then live together after that?

    A black orphan should be adopted by a black couple, but if none are available, then a white couple is better than leaving them in the orphanage (assuming that there are no more white orphans or the couple doesn’t care about race).

    3. The only significant negative influence on children of gay adoption is that they will get teased and bullied in school for having two dads. Because gay people can be crap parents just like straight people.

    • May 13, 2012 at 10:45 am

      Gay adoption is better than no adoption.

      Absolute and utter bollox. There are plenty of proper couples to adopt – there’s a waiting list, for crying out loud. This is a completely faux argument.

    • SteveW
      May 13, 2012 at 11:06 am

      “The only significant negative influence on children of gay adoption is that they will get teased and bullied in school for having two dads”

      Bully “My dad’s bigger than your dad.”
      Adoptee: “My dad’s gonna fuck your dad”

      A paraphrasing of a gag I heard by (I think) Frankie Boyle.

      • May 13, 2012 at 3:57 pm

        Might have been Steve Hughes, or at least he’s said something pretty similar.

        Straight is the new gay – NSFW. Also a good point about the right on attitude toward homophobia.

      • Voice of Reason
        May 13, 2012 at 8:12 pm

        Frankie Boyle – ‘Yeah? Well my Dad’s going to shag your Dad. And your Dad will enjoy it.’

        I know a number of gay and lesbian couples, both with and without children. It seems more common to have lesbians with kids, although they can go the conventional route to get them. The children are liberal and quite well-adjusted in all of the cases.

    • May 13, 2012 at 4:43 pm

      1 – Agreed, and certainly not a point I miss. If marriage is only for procreation it implies Mrs Exile and I should get a divorce or annulment, and we’d really rather not. On the other hand (and buried in one of my replies to James) Penny Wong, more specifically Penny Wong’s girlfriend, has procreated despite being a lesbian. So on the procreation point she and Penny Wong score where the hetero and childless Mrs Exile and I don’t, and frankly I’d be more worried about that kid’s mums being Labor than lesbian.

      2 – Adoption here is difficult regardless of gender or sexuality. I honestly think the states believe they do a better job and in an ideal world the business of raising children shouldn’t even be left to the birth parents, but in any case there are only a few hundred children adopted each year here (as a proportion I think it’s about half that of the UK). They certainly don’t make it easier for gays and about half the country legislates against gays adopting as a couple, though apart from South Australia adopting as a single parent is always an option. From a child welfare point of view I have no idea if this is good or bad – I simply do not know enough about raising children so I’m staying open minded. However, on a practical level it’s very hard not to see it as moot – what does SA do if a gay couple from a state that allows them to adopt either singly or as a couple then choose to up sticks and move to Adelaide? Somehow I doubt they kick the door in and take the kids into care in the middle of the night, and my 2¢ is that it sounds like a much more effective means of fucking up children’s heads than having two mums or dads anyway.

      3 – I was briefly bullied for having no dad, which wasn’t strictly accurate and wasn’t terribly effective because it was perfectly normal in my house was also around the time divorce started becoming sufficiently mundane that it wasn’t something to bully anyone over. Only time will tell but I suspect eventually the same will happen for children of gay parents if it isn’t starting to already. Not to say that they won’t still be bullied for something, but from my memories of school most of the bullying was for supporting the wrong footy team, being too bad at sport or having the wrong friends. These days I’d guess not having the latest smartphone or $200 trainers would mark someone out for bullying as much or more than not being in a nuclear family.

  9. SteveW
    May 13, 2012 at 10:29 am

    “Twenty-two Victorian GPs, anaesthetists, obstetricians, palliative care specialists and psychiatrists, including Prof Kuravilla George, have joined 150 colleagues interstate to argue gay marriage poses a health risk to society.” – Well yeah, but 97% of climate scientists……second hand smoke is responsible for every death, ever etc…

    “That’s digressing a bit but the point is that there are just simple, basic things anyone normal should be supporting” – Normal, should? Is that in the same way that ‘normal’ people should not smoke etc….

    Some very mixed messages in both the article and comments.

    EXTRA EDIT: I probably ought to add that personally, I could not care less what people call it, but also think the establishment behind the church/mosque/synagogue (or whatever) should have the right to determine who they want as members – what I don’t understand is why a gay couple would want a homophobic bronze age institution to bless their union. If you want to be recognised as a christian/muslim/Sky Pixie then you follow their rules or make up your own fairy tale.

    • May 13, 2012 at 4:51 pm

      Well yeah, but 97% of climate scientists……second hand smoke is responsible for every death, ever etc…

      There’s also the point that 22 docs in a state with roughly 5,000 registered doctors (and I think that might be just the GPs) isn’t all that many anyhow, and the AMA have been quick to disagree and say that their evidence says otherwise.

  10. May 13, 2012 at 11:36 am

    And there was me thinking the Cranmer issue was one of freedom of speech. I’ll get my coat.

    • May 13, 2012 at 4:59 pm

      Cranmer’s issue certainly is free speech, and absolutely he should be free to say what he likes on his blog. As he says there anyone who doesn’t agree is welcome to simply not go there as often as they like. Here I’m just arguing James’ seeming assertion that there can only be one definition of marriage and that it must be his definition out of necessity to protect children, though like him I also oppose those who agree that there can only be one definition but that it must include gays and James must be forced to recant any beliefs to the contrary.

      • May 13, 2012 at 5:18 pm

        “Forced”?

        • May 14, 2012 at 6:30 am

          If the law is changed to redefine marriage as between two consenting adults of no particular gender then James and others will be being forced to recognise marriages that their beliefs tell them are not marriages. They might do the recognising bit with their fingers crossed behind their backs but many will openly deny that those gays who’ve married have really married at all. At some point this will be seen as the ultimate crime in modern society, that of offending someone, and some poor sod will end up doing time for the thought crime of believing that gays can’t marry. The worst case scenario, which I think is currently unlikely but not impossible, is that places that hold weddings will be told that they can’t discriminate between different sex and same sex couples, which tramples over both religious freedom and property rights.

          Hope that covers the ‘forced’ bit. That’s not where we are and I’d say Christians currently hold the whip hand, but I also think they’re probably right to be concerned about it. I’m certain that there are gays and gay supporters who don’t really want the situation made fair, they want it reversed so that the Christians are on the receiving end of the inequality. That’s no improvement and I don’t see those people as any better than those who raise specious arguments to prevent a same sex couple having a secular marriage ceremony. They can believe what they want about Christians, just as the Christians can about them, but when either works to restrict the freedom of the other they’ve gone too far.

      • jameshigham
        May 13, 2012 at 5:21 pm

        James’ seeming assertion

        LOL – the whole of recorded history becomes “James’ seeming assertion”. Gosh I’m honoured to be the architect of human history. Now what was that issue Cranmer was going on about again? I’ve forgotten – help me out here, LR, AE. What was it the ASA were unhappy with him over?

        Oh freedom. They accused him of freedomphobia, didn’t they? :)

        • SteveW
          May 13, 2012 at 6:05 pm

          LOL – the whole of recorded history becomes “James’ seeming assertion”

          I suspect you may be confusing ‘the whole of recorded history’ with post New Testament, Christian history, which is not quite the same thing.

          That said, my previous comment stands – why would a gay couple want to be married in a Christian church?

        • May 13, 2012 at 6:21 pm

          They were taking issue with the 70% figure, although all he was doing was hosting the results of a survey conducted elsewhere, so that wasn’t within their remit – if it was, they should be taking it up with the producers of the advert, not the host. Also, there appears not to be any problem with the fact that the survey did, indeed come up with the 70% figure, although Unity over at Ministry of Truth is critical of its methodology.

          What is really disturbing is the offence and homophobia complaint. It is not up to the ASA to get involved – Cranmer has not signed up to their code of practice and the advert contains nothing that could be deemed to be either homophobic or offensive. My God, but you would have to be completely redefining both to make it so. This is nothing more that political knee-jerking and the jerks are the bods over at the ASA who failed to dismiss it out of hand.

        • May 14, 2012 at 7:17 am

          Did I misread the title of your post, James? Sorry, mate, I could have sworn it said:

          ‘Marriage is one man and one woman’

          Say if I’m wrong but that appears to be your assertion and that’s what I’m debating. Still, if you’re backing that assertion with ‘the whole of recorded history’ we can go there if you want. I’m not sure it’s much of a justification because X not being present in the whole of recorded history up to the point people want X doesn’t seem to be a reason in itself to prevent X. Women didn’t have the vote for the whole of recorded history, so they shouldn’t have been given the franchise? Nonsense of course, so why use it when defining marriage? In any case the whole of human history claim is simply incorrect. Ancient Greece and Rome, various parts of asia including (I think) at least a couple of Chinese dynasties, in very rare instances (which you seemed already to be aware of) even middle ages Europe, have had same sex marriages. It wasn’t mainstream anywhere, sure, and was probably unusual enough to not even be minorstream anywhere. But it happened.

          On the point of Cranmer and the ASA, perhaps I didn’t make things sufficiently clear. I disagree with what he says but I’ll forever defend his right to say it. Same applies to you: I see no sound reason why everyone should be made to accept your definition of marriage. I can understand why you want it that way but I simply don’t agree. Now on a zillion other things, say that Geelong really are the greatest team of all (bad luck this weekend by the way, and Carlton look like being top of the ladder in a few hours) we can agree to disagree, and the law has absolutely no interest unless we start physically fighting about it. You can say they’re the greatest, and I can say they lucked into 3 flags recently and are headed for an almighty slump due to an ageing list, and everyone else reading this knowing next to nothing about footy can continue not knowing or caring. Nobody is trying to force you to buy a Blues membership and you’re not demanding that everyone wears Cats hats, and most certainly nobody’s suggesting the Blues get home games at Kardinia Park (actually the analogy starts to fail after that because the Cats had a home game at the G this year :oops: ).

          See where I’m going? Why can’t the same apply to marriage? I’d be in the don’t really care group but for the fact that someone I care about would like to marry one day and at the moment the law, thanks to past and present religious influences, says no for no better reason than a strange obsession about the contents of the participants’ underpants. I’m not saying they should be free to marry in church and I’m not saying anyone else needs to recognise it as a valid marriage, just that this really should be tomayto tomahto stuff.

          • May 15, 2012 at 10:26 pm

            See where I’m going? Why can’t the same apply to marriage?

            Why can’t the same rules apply to playing football as to a driving licence or a permit to fish? They’re completely different things.

            • May 16, 2012 at 5:40 am

              You’re still thinking in terms of rules, James. I’m talking about principles. It is not a rule that everyone must agree that Geelong is the greatest team of all, or that having a driving licence is better than relying on public transport, or that fishing is the best way to spend one’s time. However, it is a principle that Cats fans, drivers and recreational fishermen are free to make whatever claim they like on the understanding that nobody else has to accept it.

              So the question stands. Why can’t that principle apply to marriage? Why can’t people who can agree to disagree on a thousand different things agree to disagree on the definition of marriage (provided of course that property rights are always respected)? Why does the law need to take sides in something that need have I’m not trying to get you to agree that two lesbians can have a wedding ceremony and become a bona fide married couple in your personal definition, and I’m certainly not trying to get you to agree that they could have it in a church. But I do want to know why, when various places would be willing to marry them (mostly secular of course, but I think the Quakers are fine with it) a couple of lesbians can’t fork over too much money for a bit of paper that says ‘wife and wife’ on it because the state and law stand in the way.

              I also want to know why you still want to retain a legal definition when it’s possible that one day it will be used against you to demand that you recognise a marriage that your religion tells you not to recognise. Let’s play out your worst fear: that marriage will be redefined in law to include gay and polygamous relationships and given equal legal standing. I’d expect a flood of demands from gay and polygamous… er, ‘units’ for want of a better term, to get married in church. The churches being pointed at anti-discrimination laws and told to rock with it seems to me to be a distinct possibility. The law as it stands has pretty inconsistent regard for property rights and if those in the gay lobby who want marriage redefined get their way I wouldn’t give tuppence for the property rights of churches to hold only those weddings they recognise when the time comes. I don’t think this will happen soon but I think it’s possible that it will happen one day, and if it does then wanting the law to carry on defining marriage will turn out to have been batting a sticky wicket all this time.

              But what if there was no legal definition to be enforced on anyone who dissents? What if gay or polygamous marriage wasn’t granted equal legal status with monogamous hetero marriage but the law just said it was no longer concerned with what marriage is any more than it is the point at which a pebble becomes a stone or a stone becomes a rock? What if two gays want to get married in church when there is no particular legal definition? Well, as now they’d be told sorry, no can do. And that’d be that because they would have no legal definition to beat the vicar over the head with. They’d get it done by someone somewhere else but that vicar would still be able to say that as far as he’s concerned they are not now and can never be really married. In the long run the freedom to speak out against gay marriage and the rights of churches to refuse to carry it out is, I think, better protected by not having a legal definition than by having one that may one day change and be used against them.

              • Ken from Kowinjeeburra
                May 16, 2012 at 11:19 am

                One thing is certain that when,not if,the gay lobby gets its way,there won’t be a very long queue at the local mosque awaiting the Immams blessing.
                Go to Sydney and take a trip up Oxford Street.There are a couple of pubs there where heterosexual ladies are banned from entering by order of a court of law.Another example of hypocrisy by the gay movement and the legal profession

              • May 16, 2012 at 2:43 pm

                Ken, I’d say the issue of the pubs in Oxford St is just another example of property rights. If they don’t want to let straight women in then there’s no reason they should be compelled to, just as churches and mosques should not be compelled to carry out gay weddings. True, some in the gay lobby want to have both, and of course they should be told that nobody gets to have their cake and eat it. The answer is not to protect definitions of words but to protect property rights.

  11. Ken from Kowinjeeburra
    May 17, 2012 at 12:37 am

    Angry,the problem with your answer is that should an Australian pub/hotel refuse to admit homosexuals the owner of the establishment would be sued and be forced by the legal profession to accept gays regardless of ‘property rights’.Such is the hypocrisy that I was talking about.
    There is no doubt what so ever that when the gay lobby has attained legal marriage they will then demand the “right” to be married in a church ….. but probably not a mosque.

United Kingdom Time

Subscribe

Email us at contact orphans of liberty [all one word] at gmail dot com

Authors

For more about these renegades, click on the name to go to a short profile:

AK Haart
Churchmouse
James Higham
JuliaM
The Quiet Man

Orphans logo


Feel free to take this for your sidebar.