The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Offended by love? > Comments

Offended by love? : Comments

By Lyn Allison, published 8/8/2007

Fifty-eight separate laws deny people in same-sex relationships the same entitlements as people in heterosexual relationships.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. All
Sorry people for jumping in; it’s about a month ago since I posted here due to lack of time and posting elsewhere. I have not read all of your posts but I just want to start by replying to Gerrit’s last comment because he made the same/similar comment on the Victorian abortion thread and I thought I reply to it here as it seems more on-topic here.

I’m impressed by the points presented by JPW.

I'm fed-up with slippery slope arguments such as polygamy and paedophilia.
Slippery-slope arguments are used to convince people, who do'nt see anything wrong with SSM, that it would eventually lead to 'disaster'. Why should a judge or anyone else be concerned with hypothetical arguments- the law can deal with those separate issues later when it comes to that. Focus on the issue on hand rather than concern yourself with a myriad of hypothetical future cases.

The argument that “The institution of marriage should be protected and the definition of marriage should never change otherwise society will detoriate- blah blah…otherwise people would want to marry their hamster, have sex with a 3 year old, marry a crowd- blah blah” is moot.

The institution of marriage has been modified several times already throughout history as it evolved; why not allow it to evolve more? What would the risk be- that society becomes more civilised?

There is no valid reason to ban certain citizens from making a legal commitment to a person they love just because of their sexual orientation.

I don’t really understand you, Gerrit, when you compare monkeys as parents with homosexuals as parents.
They are a different species- we’re talking about humans as parents here and heterosexuals do not necessarily make better parents than homosexuals.
Foster homes have to deal with a vast amount of children who were taken from heterosexual families too dysfunctional to look after them, neglected and/or abused them.

There are good and bad homosexual parents as well as good and bad heterosexual parents, you can't generalise.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 11 October 2007 12:56:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,

Using erotic love to ground the call for legal benefits associated with heterosexual marriage is a radical change. Love may or may not be concomitant with marriage – erotic love waxes and wanes. Marriage is the best protection of the RIGHTS of females to their sexuality and the RIGHTS of children to know their biological mother and father.

Leaving marriage intact is a great service we can do for the RIGHTS of future young men and women. The next generation deserve more from us who merely happen to be walking around.

Using the label ‘slippery slope’ is not the same as actually showing an argument is fallacious in that way. To reason your way would be to label the homicidal maniac refutation of Kant’s categorical imperative a slippery slope fallacy, when it is the exercise of reason par excellence. Still there is no response to my simple undemanding application of the principle being used by jpr and jpw in the obvious case of other ‘love’ relationships.

Jpw,

I don’t have time for mere insults. Nietzsche hated Christianity he had very bad taste (and his reasoning suffered dramatically). To not value Christ and his teachings is a lack in us.

1. Dailey perfect no, hateful where? As for SOCIAL scientific research, well its only as good as the next piece of research. I wouldn’t put all my eggs in that basket jpr. The argument that gay studies, genders studies, and other politicised ‘scientific’ research is tainted is not so controversial. How about Australia waits for definitive research. For the time being lets let children have a mum and a dad like we did. Agreed?

We’re all broken, all warped in some way why do you think sexual desire is immune? Eve will help here http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/

2.It is not a response to my point at all! If there was doubt before there can be no mistaking your evasions now!

3.It must have been the other jp who linked to abortion – the author said there was a connection I agreed but for very different reasons.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 11 October 2007 3:50:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know how much more plain I can make this, Martin. Just for a moment, let's say that you might be right. Let's look for evidence supporting your argument that the recognition of same-sex relationships will lead to the recognition of multi-partner relationships:

Multi-partner relationships are recognised in several African and middle-eastern countries. Has this led to the recognition of same-sex relationships? No, it hasn't.

Same-sex relationships are recognised in a few western countries. Has this followed the recognition of multi-partner relationships? No, it hasn't.

The general problems with slippery slope arguments notwithstanding, the particular slippery slope argument you are trying to make falls over in the face of the available evidence. If there is a connection between the two, it's a negative one - recognising same-sex relationships does not lead to polygamy, marriage to multitudes, or any other relationship type. Indeed, recognised same-sex and polygamous relationships may be mutually exclusive.

“Dailey ... hateful where?” Dailey is hateful in the same way you are, Martin, by spreading lies about same-sex-attracted people. See above.

"Agreed?" No way. Let's let responsible, law-abiding adults make their own reproductive decisions. Let's let their children have the same rights and benefits as everyone else's children. This, after all, is what Lyn Allison is arguing: the 58 laws which deny equal rights to same-sex couples need to be fixed. Earlier this year Graeme Innes outlined on OLO http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5549 how this inequality affects the lives of children too.

No-one is “using erotic love to ground the call for legal benefits associated with heterosexual marriage.” We’re saying that law-abiding adults deserve the same rights as everyone else. It has nothing to do with sex, or erotic love, as you put it. It has everything to do with the right to settle down with, to love and to support your partner of choice, without being disadvantaged with respect to one’s peers.

(Or is it simply that you don’t regard me as your peer, Martin?)

Finally, "it must have been the other jp who linked to abortion." Before you accuse me of being "really muddled," get your facts straight.
Posted by jpw2040, Thursday, 11 October 2007 7:14:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia, “Offended by love” or do you accept sexual relationships between brother and sister? After all, why should they be deprived of their love if it is alright for homosexuals and lesbians to have a marriage?
Oh, you may argue about consequences of such a marriage, why, if they do not intend to have children? Not that I seek to promote such kind of marriages, but to those people they too have a “love”. In particular if they grew up and had sexual intercourse without then knowing they were blood brother and sister and only may have discovered this when planning to get married.

What then if a marriage took place before they discovered they were blood sister and brother?
And, while on it, many people, and particularly the elderly have animals that are for them like children/partner or whatever. Their love is genuine and to them if they can leave their estate to their best friend then why not allow any type of love even is this is deemed to be between human and animal?
Again, I do not seek to promote this kind of relationship but reality is that the “love” of a person towards another human being can have a special meaning and if we are going to lower society’s standards of what a marriage is about then why not let everyone have their own kind of marriage?
Or is it that just you should have your way and others not because that is not to your social standards?
Well, if you are going to have certain standards then so have others also. And, we normally express those standards in what we call “laws”.
We call it bigamy when you are becoming married to a person of the opposite sex when already married but in other countries there might be no such issue. That is why they have different cultures and laws. So, perhaps you might just have those pursuing a marriage between gay people to pack up and move to a country where they can live their “love” in such a marriage. Such a simple solution!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Friday, 12 October 2007 1:59:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My third paragraph above should read:

Same-sex relationships are recognised in a few western countries. Has the recognition of multi-partner relationships followed this? No, it hasn't.

And before anyone starts claiming that polygamy is practised in The Netherlands, let me point out that polygamy is still prohibited in The Netherlands. There was one case where a group persuaded a public notary to let them sign up for a three-way “samenlevingscontract” or cohabitation contract, but at last report, this attempt to circumvent the prohibition of polygamy was headed for a ministerial review: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/354

Not sure how the review turned out, but I haven’t heard of any more examples of using the “samenlevingscontract” the same way
Posted by jpw2040, Friday, 12 October 2007 7:35:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gerrit,
you simply don’t accept homosexuality itself; use arguments why you are against it. You’re not just against SSM because you believe it will lead to something immoral, you believe that it is immoral on its own merit. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are using slippery slope arguments to convince others that accepting homosexual marriage will lead to something immoral.
SSM is as much about love, security, intimacy, the sharing of emotional, financial and social benefits between two consenting adults as heterosexual marriage. Homophobes are so focused on SEX! It's only a part of the relationship. The sex is a consensual act between two mature adults and none of anyone's business, it's private.

Not all that long ago, interracial marriage was thought of as immoral and a threat to the sanctity of marriage and was a felony.
But hey, as society evolved and the zeitgeist moved on society came to accept new social norms.
Marriage between different ethnicities has not damaged any marriages between same-ethnicity couples.
In fact, today it’s unthinkable that interracial marriage should be illegal- there would be outrage if anyone would want to reverse the laws!
I am confident that Australia will finally catch up with other, more socially advanced countries and extend these rights to same-sex couples, too. Only a matter of time.

There is no reason to believe that updated, fairer social norms will threaten sanctity to marriage.
I am married with children and I cannot imagine how SSM would threaten my family life. In fact I think it will benefit the whole of society when homosexuals are not being treated as second rate citizens. Homophobia is a danger to society, not SSM.

Now as for marriage between different species, animals have a bit of a problem understanding and signing a marriage contract; neither do they have any legal standing.

Marriage between siblings is a slippery slope argument also because it's about incest and irrelevant to SSM.

It would be highly unfair if homosexuals are denied marriage just because incest or sex with animals is immoral.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 12 October 2007 10:04:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy