Monday, September 17, 2012

Surprises in same sex marriage debate

There has been more debate in the Australian Parliament on the issue of same sex marriage. One Labor Senator spoke emotionally about marriage from a personal perspective:
A Labor senator who has a transgender partner says it's not right that the laws of Australia discriminate against same-sex marriage.

An emotional Senator Pratt told the upper house on Monday the law as it stood discriminated against her relationship and those of many others.

'I am one of those hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens who knows that the laws of our nation hold our capacity for love and for commitment to be lesser because of the gender of our partner,' she said.

...'This debate has a personal impact for me.'
Senator Louise Pratt

That makes it sound as if Senator Pratt and her trans man partner, Aram Hosie, are itching to get married as an expression of their love but are being held back by the law.

In fact it appears as if Senator Pratt's partner is openly hostile to marriage, seeing it as an oppressive patriarchal institution that ought to be abolished.

Aram Hosie was born female but now identifies as a "trans man" - a transgender male. In a debate on same sex marriage in 2010, Hosie put the case against same sex marriage in these terms:
I am against gay marriage, I don't want it. I don't want straight marriage either, I don't want marriage full stop. I don't see why we should be hanging onto this antiquated relic that still reeks of misogyny and bigotry. Why would we want to buy into an institution that was established so that men could legally own is an ownership ceremony and I'd really like you to be honest about why you want it...

Marriage is about recognising some relationships as legitimate and others as less so. On one side of that debate is the nuclear family...and on the other side is everyone doing everything else. Marriage is like this massive apparatus set up to coerce and cajole and fool us all into thinking that the nuclear family is the natural and preferred state of being. So I'm concerned that the only thing gay marriage would do is to create a bunch of queers who are a little more acceptable than all the other queers ... where does that leave all the other queers that aren't married, where does that leave the single queers, where does that leave queers that are engaged in sex work or are in poly relationships?...the sexual conduct of two consenting adults shouldn't be the basis of discrimination.

The last part of the argument is the most interesting. It shows that marriage will never be left alone by radical liberals. Marriage is inherently discriminatory in that it recognises one sort of relationship rather than others. Therefore, it is thought to fail the test in which there are to be no impediments to how we self-determine our relationships - as Hosie puts it the conduct "of two consenting adults shouldn't be the basis of discrimination" - even if it means putting on a par the choice to do sex work, to live in a poly relationship, to be single, or to live as a couple.

And in one sense Hosie is right. If all relationship types are of equal worth, then why would you have marriage? If it really doesn't matter what sexual arrangements I come up with, then it seems arbitrary to recognise one type of relationship as being deserving of marriage.

So marriage does discriminate. And the only way to justify that discrimination is if marriage really is, as Hosie puts it, a preferred state of being. Otherwise it really is just arbitrary, or perhaps just a power ploy by some people over others, an "ownership ceremony" as Hosie derisively labels it.

Which brings me back to the senate debate. Some of those who spoke against same sex marriage did so on the right grounds. For instance, George Brandis replied to the leader of the Greens in this way:
Opposition attorney-general spokesman George Brandis said the opposition would not support the bill.

He said the progressive left had since the 1960s mocked and derided marriage as a patriarchal institution.

'All of a sudden, within the last few years, this institution so derided by you has been rediscovered by you as the test of whether or not one cares about the issue of sexuality discrimination,' he said.

'Senator Hanson-Young, with all due respect, I have very, very, very great difficulty accepting your sincerity.'

He has a point, doesn't he? Senator Louise Pratt was willing to make an emotional plea for same sex marriage as a personal issue even though her trans man husband is vehemently opposed to the very existence of marriage. The issue of sincerity is a real one.

And another senator had this to say:
Chris Back said the [same sex] legislation was 'very adult-centric' when it came to the rights and needs of children.

'There is overwhelming research ... that a child's best interests are served when born into and brought up in a home which is provided by a husband and his wife in a long-term and loving relationship,' he told parliament.

'That is what we should aspire to.'

Unless you are willing to argue something along those lines then you won't be able to justify the existence of marriage as a necessarily discriminatory institution. In other words, it makes no sense to argue "we should retain marriage as a significant institution, but all relationship types are of equal worth". You have to be willing to argue that the marital relationship has some higher value, either in terms of what it represents, or in what it achieves.


  1. "Gay marriage" is being lead by rich elite feminist women, who due to their hypergamy, want marriage, which has become a status symbol, since it is dying in the lower and middle classes, being replaced by single motherhood in the lower classes, or cohabitation in the middle classes. This is due to the flooding of women into the workforce, destroying the status of most men and having just a few high-status husbands (after taking away the ones who are bachelors) available for marriage towards rich feminist women.

    Marriage is disdained by true liberalism and this cry for "gay marriage" is being lead by fabulous rich liberal white women, who love, love, love gays as Blogger Whiskey from the Manosphere says and despise beta males.

    We have the few gays who do desire "gay marriage" but they're mostly following the rich cultural winds of their elite feminist sisters, who use IVF and surrogacy (very expensive ART!) as well to propagate their kind.

  2. Basically this entire "gay marriage" fiasco is about status whoring and, pun intended, to give the middle finger to those "unwashed" masses who cling to their guns and religions (e.g. religious middle class people).

    Note that it's middle class, not underclass, despite the fact that these rich liberals want to portray minorities as mostly hardworking middle class (We support the middle class!) and whites as the underclass, when in reality it's the other way around (a lot of minorities in the underclass). It's a sick, twisted state of mind.

    There is also "power-couples" in the UMC (thanks to feminism) and if divorced, would lose their entire wealth and become middle class faster than an eye blink, who support "gay marriage".

    It's all status-whoring. How can it not be, when religious people don't like the whole autonomy project, and the middle classes don't like it either?

    A good question is how all of this "gay marriage" thing will affect low-status gays. They can't afford marriage, nor care about it, and can't hire a surrogate. IVF is darn expensive and only the upper elite can afford it.

    What about them? Do rich elite liberals want to subsidize poor gays and put them on welfare?

  3. Another thing though is that there are few gays in the lower-classes. There's homosexual activity for sure, but few cling to a gay identity as the upper-classes do.

  4. Should the anus be used as a sex organ? Google First Scandal. When you get there, go to the top of the page and click on "Can you explain..." Please note: this website you reach will be deleted on November 1, 2012.

  5. More & more I think that it would be a good idea for the tiny remnant of the Faithful to pool their money, in order to emigrate to some remote island. Wait until the infidels kill each other out (not to say I hope for this, or take pleasure in the prospect, but at this point it's pretty much inevitable), then the remnant can inherit the earth.

  6. Elizabeth Smith says, correctly: "There are few gays in the lower classes." There are also extremely few homosexuals among American blacks, who, when given half a chance, are refreshingly candid about what they think of dung-punchers per se.

  7. couple things i figured i'd mention that you didn't.

    a) the born this way argument. i don't doubt that it's true for most people. the question though is whether it's true for ALL people, that is is everyone's sexuality hard-wired from birth. dunno 'bout you Aussies but here in the States it's officially the LGBT movement, B being bisexual obviously. somewhat amusingly (because they get "biphobic" complaints thrown at them in the way they throw "homophobic" complaints at others) there's some skepticism among homosexuals that male bisexuality exists in any significant numbers, or whether these people are just halfway-out closet cases. i can't really comment cuz i can't see into people's minds obviously.

    however our media has had plenty of stories regarding the "fluidity" of female sexuality. "hasbians" who were lesbians for significant periods of time, "late-life lesbians" who don't describe their lives as repressed before that, etc. etc. so there's the question of complete normalization, and whether it'll influence some "ambiguous" people, even if it only occurs on the margins.

    also if someone's legitimately bisexual, is it responsible to tell them whichever sex they end up with is of no consequence? obviously not

    b) errr i forgot...oh yeah, adoption. obviously same-sex marriage means the end of even minor preferences there. and i honestly think most Americans here intuitively know that gender is of a lot more significant than race in raising kids despite all the tendentious analogies.

  8. If we were able to reestablish the marriage laws that were in place in, say, 1962, very few homosexual couples would be interested in signing up as a married couple. That would mean that adultery is once again a serious crime, divorce is difficult, and the innocent partner in a divorce receives substantial damages. Of course, not many heterosexuals would sign up for this sort of marriage, either. I oppose homosexual marriage, but believe that we heterosexuals made marriage attractive to them by turning institution of marriage into a hollow sham. Many of us may live as if we were bound in a traditional marriage, but we're bound to our spouses by our personal ideal of marriage, not by the institution.

  9. @JSmith - I take offense at the "we heterosexuals". Many opponents constantly say that heterosexuals destroyed marriage but in reality the feminist movement and the sexual revolution destroyed marriage, by changing the way we as a populace behave, and by making it liberal.

    People should stop pointing fingers at traditional conservatives and start pointing fingers at both high-status feminists (married late with 1-2 or no children) and low-status feminists (no husband, a single mother).

  10. @anonymous,
    Certainly, there are significant differences between liberal and conservative heterosexuals. And as I said, truly conservative heterosexual couples continue to conduct their marriages as if the laws and attitudes that surrounded legal marriage still existed. My point is simply that the roots of "gay marriage" are found in liberal reforms to heterosexual marriage. Therefore, it is not enough simply to resist "gay marriage." Traditionalists must also be prepared to roll back a great many innovations of the sexual revolution, and when they attempt this roll-back, most of their opponents will be other heterosexuals.

  11. Another ethnic European woman who want to destroy healthy society. Can someone explain why ethnic European women all over the world want to destroy their own people and culture?

  12. Another ethnic European woman who want to destroy healthy society. Can someone explain why ethnic European women all over the world want to destroy their own people and culture?

    The manosphere blames this on hypergamy and an entitled princess mentality. And I think this is right. Making women "equal" with men, pushed a lot of men to the rock bottom and thereby less men suitable for "strong independent" feminist women.

  13. Exactly. "Gender equality" is really male weakness, and weakness is the opposite of what women find attractive in men.

    Hence, since white Western societies have embraced gender equality, white Western women are deciding that their own people are not worthy of existence.

  14. Elizabeth Smith says "There are few gays in the lower classes." There are also extremely few homosexuals among American blacks

    Alas, no -- the blacks have a much HIGHER rate of homosexuality. Compared to the rest of America, blacks have 2x the rate of exclusive homosexuality, and 4x the rate of bisexuality.

    You could perhaps explain the "bisexual" scores, as an artifact of high black crime rates (leading to high imprisonment rates... and we all know what goes on in prison) -- but that can't explain the DOUBLED rate of exclusive homosexuality.

    There is a very strong correlation between father-absence and male homosexuality, and certainly the black population does that a lot more than whites. Perhaps that's the explanation.

    Data from NARTH, btw.

  15. Sorry if I confused you Van Rpoinek. I'm talking about homosexual orientation, not necessarily activity (a couple of gay flings or relief in all-male spaces). Many blacks engage in homosexual activity but few come out with a "gay identity".

    I think the black males in prison are also the least likely to identify as exclusively gay or with a full-blown gay identity.

  16. Mark, I assume you would see some disappointing aspects if Tony Abbott can win office next year but I can tell you the prospect of George Brandis becoming Attorney – General will see the cork ripped out of a very nice bottle of Champagne at my place if they triumph on the night. Just think, no Nicola Roxon making the decisions, George Brandis making them! That’s reason enough to pull another bottle out the fridge!

    Tony Abbott has said quite rightly he won’t let his party say one thing before an election “no Gay Marriage” then do another in office “allow a conscience vote” which is the current Labor stunt to push the deal through, though it will fail. People like Penny Wong point out the pressure will keep coming to force Gay Marriage on Australia, so it can’t be stopped? Or can it?

    The Commonwealth’s power over Marriage is held in the Constitution in “Section 51 Part (XXI) Marriage”. After the election of an Abbott Government all Conservatives should lobby for a referendum to insert the following clause “Marriage is a reserved word throughout the Commonwealth, States and under all delegated Legislation and will have the following meaning “the union of a man and women whose gender is determinate at the time of their birth” .”

    If passed none of this would prevent the Gay lobbyists trying to get legislated recognition of their “relationships” but the word “marriage” would be barred from them permanently and handed to those it belongs to permanently . Tony Abbott would not be breaching any electoral promise as he could argue the decision was being made by the public and even if it failed it would not allow Gay Marriage without further legislation. Australians don’t normally pass amendments so it might be a gamble but I think it would get up and be a huge and much needed, if largely symbolic , win for a re-embrace of conservative values in this country.

  17. " I take offense at the "we heterosexuals". Many opponents constantly say that heterosexuals destroyed marriage but in reality the feminist movement and the sexual revolution destroyed marriage, by changing the way we as a populace behave, and by making it liberal."

    Feminist movement is quite old but paradoxically quite young in public perception. So people, even feminists, can believe things like patriarchy giving away child-custody to women since it locked women into child-rearing roles.

    fedrz, an veteran MRA cites Daniel Amneus and his works 'The Garbage Generation' and 'The Case for Father Custody' and points out that default father custody was undermined by the feminists and led to divorce craze at the time. Secondly the 'fault-divorce' was also undermined to a sham before it was finally let go of too.

    Then the 2nd wave feminists have used 'for the benefit of women' argument to make marriage meaningless. The further revolution will use 'for the benefit of children' to make children 'fully human' and wards of state rather than of their mothers.

    'Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state'

    The homosexual marriage is just the last nail in the coffin.

    "Why would we want to buy into an institution that was established so that men could legally own is an ownership ceremony and I'd really like you to be honest about why you want it..."

    is she/he/it/zie coming from here:

  18. Elizabeth Smith writes:

    "I think the black males in prison are also the least likely to identify as exclusively gay or with a full-blown gay identity."

    It makes sense that there could be truth to this, at least for some men in prison. Memory is only so accurate within the context of their confinement. It's, after restrainment, that these men experience the reality of women again, and in due time, the thought pops up: ya know what...