13 November 2013

A Labor argument against gay marriage

| johnboy
Join the conversation
46

Robin Saville has asked to put his point of view on gay marriage so here it is, his bio follows:

The Social Revolution (in the West). An upside-down world.

Those who support the marriage of same gender couples have powerful words on their side:

FAIRNESS EQUALITY LOVE

They have linked their struggle with the struggles against race discrimination and female suffrage and equality. Their wagon is painted the same colour as these others.

They have strong arguments:

IT HURTS NO ONE LEAVE US ALONE

Of course, we all fear to be labelled busybodies or, worse, persecutors.

Their position is bolstered by portrayals of homosexuals in the media such as Modern Family and other youth oriented media of loving, well-adjusted citizens of the community who work hard, volunteer, pay taxes and are good neighbours.

I do not deny that these portrayals represent real people in our community.

There is also the argument put forward by Christian defenders of the rights of homosexuals to counter the Book of Leviticus and other Judeo-Christian religious-based objections that:

God made us and God loves us.

As a Christian man, again, I do not deny this argument. I maintain He does love all of us.

It looks as though I am losing the argument.

But I cannot be persuaded that romantic love between those of same genders can be accepted and should be recognised in law through marriage.

I deny it.

My objection to marriage between same gender couples is based on a belief that there is a fundamental misalignment – not in society but in individuals. This misalignment is in those people who – do not believe they are homosexual, but – ARE homosexual. They are made this way- by their Creator or by Nature- however you interpret the world. I accept this. I accept they are homosexual and are attracted to others of their gender. No stamping of feet will deny this reality. But they are misaligned. Mismade. Not in balance.

I accept who they are. I accept they are my equal. I accept they are good people. I accept they are people.

But I deny that there should be this new place in our community. It is taking the ‘Rights Bus’ to a new and alien and inherently wrong destination.

I deny that the advocates for same gender marriage should have a right that contravenes societal norms, religion, tradition, biology and common sense.

May I use a word that may, but should not, discomfort you? The issue is fundamental.

I will use another word if it helps to convey my meaning: basic, essential, cardinal, intrinsic or integral.

A man marrying a man is, was and will always be wrong.
A woman marrying a woman is, was and will always be wrong.

There is no shade of grey in this.
I am sorry. I will not change.
I am sorry. I cannot change.

I close by writing that I am motivated by care and compassion to my fellow men and women – but not to those things that are beyond the fundamental.

I will not live in an upside-down world.

Bio:

41 years old. Married with 3 children. Lives in Goulburn. Elected to Council in 2012. Former ALP candidate for the Federal seat of Hume in 2010.

Works in Canberra. Former teacher.

Join the conversation

46
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

thebrownstreak69 said :

vulpior said :

c_c™ said :

When Canberra was foundered, over 95% of the population was Christian, that’s now well below 60%.

Remember, too, that there are many Christians who don’t agree with the line being peddled by their leaders and the so-called Australian Christian Lobby. The Quakers as a denomination, while small, are gay-positive; the Uniting Church encompasses a variety of views; many Anglicans, especially in the more liberal/catholic churches, are pro-LGBT; and surveys have shown that Catholics by no means agree with official teaching on sexuality, contraception or abortion.

It’s much easier to lump everyone together, though, You know, like how gays all love sequins.

True. Marrying two wrongs won’t make a little right.

thebrownstreak699:46 am 26 Nov 13

vulpior said :

c_c™ said :

When Canberra was foundered, over 95% of the population was Christian, that’s now well below 60%.

Remember, too, that there are many Christians who don’t agree with the line being peddled by their leaders and the so-called Australian Christian Lobby. The Quakers as a denomination, while small, are gay-positive; the Uniting Church encompasses a variety of views; many Anglicans, especially in the more liberal/catholic churches, are pro-LGBT; and surveys have shown that Catholics by no means agree with official teaching on sexuality, contraception or abortion.

It’s much easier to lump everyone together, though, You know, like how gays all love sequins.

c_c™ said :

When Canberra was foundered, over 95% of the population was Christian, that’s now well below 60%.

Remember, too, that there are many Christians who don’t agree with the line being peddled by their leaders and the so-called Australian Christian Lobby. The Quakers as a denomination, while small, are gay-positive; the Uniting Church encompasses a variety of views; many Anglicans, especially in the more liberal/catholic churches, are pro-LGBT; and surveys have shown that Catholics by no means agree with official teaching on sexuality, contraception or abortion.

thebrownstreak698:56 am 26 Nov 13

But, but, but… Abbott hates gayz…..

Seriously. Write to Abbott, as I have, and put forward a strong, legitimate, measured argument as to why gay marriage should be allowed.

Forget the ACT government and their political point scoring, that is not the way. In fact, if anything Corbell’s strategy has simply got the feds backs up and is therefore unproductive and actually hurts the campaign.

A strong undercurrent of public opinion is the way to change this. Not cheap political opportunism…

Are you kidding? Why would one want to do that when one can get on the interwebz and complain about crazy conservative government who one didn’t vote for, because the rest of Australia is wrong, just wrong, maaaaaaan…

Anyone with an opinion either way on this non issue is a f****** idiot. Meaningless isn’t a strong enough word to describe marriage.

When Canberra was foundered, over 95% of the population was Christian, that’s now well below 60%.
What gives Christianity the right to continue to exert this ridiculous and illogical influence on the laws and moral norma of our society? What gives Christian institutions, who have now been outed as supporting pedophilia and actively protecting those who engage in it, the moral licence to define what is right and wrong for all when they can’t even keep their own house in order?

Christian conceptions of marriage once made women the property of their husbands; completely subservient in the eyes of the law. They once forced women to stay in abusive of detrimental relationships.

My view on same-sex marriage is a legal one, it’s not rooted in morals or in a personal interest, but rather rationality.

There is no such rationality in the OP’s words; it’s a faith based argument that by its very nature is the evidence of things not seen, that is supported only by belief not proof and can only be based on belief not proof.

And his words, so neatly capped off with ‘I will not live in an upside-down world’ is typically of the far conservatives and as foolhardy as when Edmund Burke watched the French Revolution take place and argued, change would mean the death of modern European civilisation.

Deref said :

LadyxBec said :

I think the most insulting bit about this is the headline. It’s not a Labor argument, it’s a deranged Christian argument.

It’s not an argument at all. It’s begging the question.

I’m utterly thrilled to discover that at least one other person in Canberra understands that “begging the question” doesn’t mean “asking the question”. Thanks Deref, I can now die a happy man. 🙂

LadyxBec said :

I think the most insulting bit about this is the headline. It’s not a Labor argument, it’s a deranged Christian argument.

It’s not an argument at all. It’s begging the question.

I think the most insulting bit about this is the headline. It’s not a Labor argument, it’s a deranged Christian argument.

I don’t know why I’m bothering, but if you can’t see the disconnect between saying that you accept that they are equal to you and good people, but oh wait you’re actually defective and should never get married you’re a lost cause.

Skidbladnir said :

But how an argument that boils down to “Wrong thing is wrong” counts as fit to print, I don’t understand…

Using the same logic as for most of the opinion pieces printed in newspapers: we need content to fill in the spaces between the ads.

Ben_Dover said :

Tim33 said :

Ben_Dover said :

If god doesn’t like bumming, why did it he make it possible in the first place?

(And so enjoyable.)

Enjoyable? My last prostate exam at the doctors was unpleasant and painful and that was only a gloved finger.

Tight arse…

I loved the Underbelly scene where Aussie Bob was getting a prostate exam and said “I should have asked you to use two fingers – then I could have had a second opinion.”

Tim33 said :

Ben_Dover said :

If god doesn’t like bumming, why did it he make it possible in the first place?

(And so enjoyable.)

Enjoyable? My last prostate exam at the doctors was unpleasant and painful and that was only a gloved finger.

Tight arse…

Ben_Dover said :

If god doesn’t like bumming, why did it he make it possible in the first place?

(And so enjoyable.)

Enjoyable? My last prostate exam at the doctors was unpleasant and painful and that was only a gloved finger.

maxblues said :

Former Labor PM was also against gay marriage and I’m not sure she had a coherent argument either. Considering she is still banging on about equality and trying to rally the sisterhood behind her (literally…she made a large number of them sit behind her on stage recently), it seems strange that she would deny some of these sisters equality in marriage.

My understanding is that much of Julia’s resistance to gay marriage came from a need to keep Joe De Bruyn’s shoppies onside – purely a factional issue. That’s why she always seems so unconvincing.

‘The issue is fundamental.’

Tee hee.

chewy14 said :

The logic of Robin was irrepressible.

😀 I see what you did there.

LSWCHP said :

cmdwedge said :

Look at this picture – http://www.goulburnpost.com.au/story/968102/saville-hume-labor-candidate/

One word for you. Latent.

Wouldn’t be surprised.

NSFW: http://onion.com/coJDbl

If god doesn’t like bumming, why did it he make it possible in the first place?

(And so enjoyable.)

Former Labor PM was also against gay marriage and I’m not sure she had a coherent argument either. Considering she is still banging on about equality and trying to rally the sisterhood behind her (literally…she made a large number of them sit behind her on stage recently), it seems strange that she would deny some of these sisters equality in marriage.

The logic of Robin was irrepressible.

LSWCHP said :

cmdwedge said :

Look at this picture – http://www.goulburnpost.com.au/story/968102/saville-hume-labor-candidate/

One word for you. Latent.

Wouldn’t be surprised.

Based on that picture I was half expecting the caption “I don’t have Tourette’s you’re just a C$%T”.

40% or so of the ALP voted no in their conscience vote, this shouldn’t surprise you?

cmdwedge said :

Look at this picture – http://www.goulburnpost.com.au/story/968102/saville-hume-labor-candidate/

One word for you. Latent.

Wouldn’t be surprised.

patrick_keogh7:30 pm 13 Nov 13

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Former teacher.

Thank Odin for small mercies.

Former teacher, unsuccessful federal politician, lives interstate.
Several risks averted.

Woody Mann-Caruso7:07 pm 13 Nov 13

I think it’s particularly interesting that this goes beyond the ‘God says it’s wrong’ argument to ‘well, yeah, sure, God made them this way, either directly or through natural processes He controls, but it’s wrong, anyway.’ (One wonders why God’s quality assurance processes don’t extend to these ‘misaligned’ people. Did He make them all on a Monday?)

Which also prompts one to wonder why God spent so much time making (or at least not fixing) blokes who love other blokes, girls who love other girls, and telling everybody He loves them all equally, only to deny them access to in-laws and overpriced photographers. What is He trying to achieve, exactly?

I loved this bit:

A man marrying a man is, was and will always be wrong.
A woman marrying a woman is, was and will always be wrong.

That’s all good and well on the face of it, but I think it’s fair to ask why. Presumably, the answer is that God says it’s wrong in the prequels, and never really got around to plugging that particular plot hole in Episodes IV-VI. But that just leads to another question, one that’s been bandied about for centuries:

_Is it wrong because God says it’s wrong, or does God say that because it’s wrong?_

This poses a particular dilemma for Mr Saville.

The first bit raises the possibility that God could manifest in this realm as, say, Brian Blessed’s voice booming forth from the burning wreckage of a Datsun 120Y pushed well past its limits, and say ‘You know what? I change My mind. Bum away, lads. Ladies? DIIIIIIVE.’ This would render Mr Sullivan in the untenable position of claiming that something that was always wrong and always will be now isn’t, but still is.

The second possibility is that two butchers from Hoppers Crossing playing ‘meat – it’s what’s for dinner’ in the privacy of their tastefully-decorated boudoir is objectively wrong, whether God says so or not. But that means that God isn’t omnipotent – He’s bound by some law of the universe, the same as us, and He can’t change it. Which is a bit like spending hours making lamb and rosemary snags so large you can’t lift them, or something.

All in all, I have to say I’ve heard more persuasive arguments from my six-year-old son for why he should be allowed to eat ice cream and tinned pineapple for every meal. Which is to say, I know it’s a sometimes food, and I know that wouldn’t be good for me, and I know there are all sorts of reasons why I should eat something else, but I just reckon you should let me, because.

At least my other favourite idiot put it succinctly:

I don’t liiiike it.

HiddenDragon6:24 pm 13 Nov 13

And yet it moves, Robin.

Somewhat more relevantly, do we have any public pronouncements, with reasons, from right wing union bosses who oppose same sex marriage?

Ronald_Coase5:21 pm 13 Nov 13

The only sensible point is the recognition that he’s losing the argument.

Woody Mann-Caruso4:27 pm 13 Nov 13

Former teacher.

Thank Odin for small mercies.

It seems Councillor Saville may work at the Museum of Democracy.

No irony there folks. Move along now.

IP

CrocodileGandhi said :

Not quite sure I’m following the argument.

That’s because it’s not an argument, it’s simply a classic example of begging the question.

Mr Saville is, of course, thoroughly entitled to his opinion and beliefs. He is not, however, entitled to impose them on the rest of is.

astrojax said :

sex sex sex, that’s all you young people think about…

Good one astro.

Robertson said :

Skidbladnir said :

But how an argument that boils down to “Wrong thing is wrong” counts as fit to print, I don’t understand…

I guess because that puts it at least at the level of the so-called arguments being raised in favour of changing marriage to allow homosexual marriage.

HAHA … HILARIOUS!!!

Skidbladnir said :

But how an argument that boils down to “Wrong thing is wrong” counts as fit to print, I don’t understand…

I guess because that puts it at least at the level of the so-called arguments being raised in favour of changing marriage to allow homosexual marriage.

Small point:
Robin is male.

But how an argument that boils down to “Wrong thing is wrong” counts as fit to print, I don’t understand…

amarooresident31:40 pm 13 Nov 13

Robin is a he. And wrong.

astrojax said :

sex sex sex, that’s all you young people think about…

And some over 40s, obviously.

Holden Caulfield12:56 pm 13 Nov 13

Robin went to the trouble of composing almost 500 words and forgot to include a rational argument to support her view. I’m guessing she didn’t win the school debating comp.

Good on you JB for running this. Although, I’m sure you quickly worked out Robin’s words actually form a better argument for marriage equality than against it.

“I will not live in an upside-down world.”

On the positive side, at least we know she understands the world isn’t flat.

Is that a suicide note?

There’s definitely a fundamental misalignment here, right next to Robins mental misalignment.. I think it’s tragic that she could have taught our peers and people like her should have to apply and be approved to procreate. It’s a shame that we’re going to have to wait another generation thanks to “teachers” like that before we grow as a nation.

CrocodileGandhi said :

Not quite sure I’m following the argument. But it appears to be along the lines of “It is wrong because it is wrong”.

That’s pretty much what I got out of it, once I sorted through all the parenthetical guff.

CrocodileGandhi12:28 pm 13 Nov 13

“I deny that the advocates for same gender marriage should have a right that contravenes societal norms, religion, tradition, biology and common sense.”

Let’s look at these one at a time.

Societal Norms – Yeah, like the long held societal norm that women shouldn’t vote or that black people are less than human?

Religion – Noting your reference to Leviticus, please point me to the Australian law which prohibits me from cross-fertilising seeds, touching the skin of a pig, wearing polyester, or working on Sundays. If you’re going to refer to Leviticus to support your argument, you shouldn’t be advocating against gay marriage, you should be advocating for the execution of gay people.

Tradition – Ah yes, tradition. The final bastion of the person who has lost an argument. “Well, I’ve certainly no good reason to defend this, but it’s always been done this way, so there!”. Besides, we know that the most common form of marriage in many cultures used to be a man and many women. Something that was confirmed by ABC Fact Check.

Biology – if biology is a main concern, we should be doing away with marriages or anything which promotes monogamy. The best course of action would be for men to inseminate as many women as possible and for women to disregard factors such as love and respect in favour of mating with the most fit men.

Common Sense – it seems to me that the most common sense approach is to allow those things which bring obvious benefits to individuals whilst not materially affecting anyone else. Gay marriage fits this definition perfectly.

sex sex sex, that’s all you young people think about…

“But I cannot be persuaded that romantic love between those of same genders can be accepted….”

Are you saying that no matter what I say, you can’t be persuaded that I accept the romantic love of people of the same gender? ‘Cause I do you know. I’ve seen same sex couple who are romantically in love. Some times they even kiss. That’s not really my thing (unless both chicks are hot), but you know, I still accept it. I’ll sign a stat dec is it will help you believe me.

Yep don’t see any solid reasoning there at all.

Then again I don’t know why anybody would want to get married anyway, regardless of sexual orientation

Eh.

CrocodileGandhi11:52 am 13 Nov 13

Not quite sure I’m following the argument. But it appears to be along the lines of “It is wrong because it is wrong”.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.