Gay rights advocates faced a tough week with rulings from the high courts in Australia and India — both reaffirming bans on same-sex marriage. While the trend is happily moving in the opposite direction, the campaign for marriage equality faced two setbacks in these rulings. In Australia, the decision to allow same-sex marriage in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) was struck down as exceeding the authority of the territory. In India, a long-standing criminalization of homosexuality was reinstated. Adding to this disappointing week is the national address given by Russian President Vladimir Putin reaffirming the opposition to gay rights by his government as a stand for moral leadership.
The ACT parliament passed a bill in October legalizing same-sex weddings. However, the move was challenged by the national government which argued that such questions had to be answered by the national government, not regional governments. Moreover, in September 2012, the parliament voted down such a change. Accordingly, the national law limits marriage to the union of a man and a women under a law passed in 2004.
The situation was worse in India where the Supreme Court struck down a 2009 lower court ruling decriminalizing homosexual conduct. The court ruled that such questions could only be answered by the legislature. This left in place a colonial era law that makes homosexual relations a crime subject to a ten-year prison term. The law from the 1860s is actually a British import and states that “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” can be punished by up to 10 years behind bars. The New Delhi High Court had struck down the law and now stands reversed. Hindu and Muslim (as well as Christian) groups united in seeking the reversal. It appears that a mutual prejudice against homosexuals produced a rare moment of unity among the religious groups.
Then there is Russia. In a move that no doubt strengthened his ties to the powerful Russian Orthodox Church, Putin used his annual state of the nation address to present Russia as the moral leader of the world, specifically targeting gay rights as his proof of such leadership.
Putin denounced the “review of norms of morality” in the West and said that “the destruction of traditional values from above not only entails negative consequences for society, but is also inherently anti-democratic because it is based on an abstract notion and runs counter to the will of the majority of people.” He presented such rights as destroying any distinction between “good and evil” and struck out at “so-called tolerance – genderless and infertile.” Of course, many believe that Putin does bring clarity on the question of “good and evil” but clearly disagree on which value he personifies after years of suppressing the media, free speech, and civil liberties.
All in all, not a great week for gay rights.
David M wrote:
“Darren…Many crimes have been around forever. Bestiality, incest and pedophilia have been around forever, so would you then argue that we should not have laws that address the problems created by these sexually immoral behaviors?
~+~
There is a difference between bestiality, incest, pedophilia and allowing same sex marriage. The first three are consent issues. Animals cannot give consent to sexual acts as can neither can children from a statutory point of view. Incest, if involving minors is just as I forementioned about consent. But since we are looking at the moral issue and the resuting legislation incest has biological repercussions to children born from incestuous relationships especially if this continues in further generations. I think Pete is more qualified to talk about this than I am though.
We can also look at anti-miscegnation laws of the not to distant past here in the US. Many considered then, and some today, that a marriage between a black woman and a white man is immoral. Nevertheless these laws were declared unconstituional. But those who have objection to this are within their right to feel that way.
One thing to keep in mind is that despite what the majority of a nation wants, if their nation is based organized under a constitution and has judicial review like ours, the morality is not relevant in the eyes of the courts. I remember however there was case law regarding community standards but my recollection is rather weak on this. This is certainly not the case in many countries.
In the US it is a rather hard thing to base a need for the government to decide same sex marriage as being an interest by the state, but as you and I know this is controversial and non-uniform here.
Yes, there are certain times where morality and laws are broken by the same act such as rape of a vulnerable person but they are not necessarily always in agreement and are often subject to disagreement or perspective. It makes a difficult situation where behavior is dictated by the wishes of everyone and different between cities or even blocks and nobody can be sure where they stand. For example I don’t believe boys under 15 should wear neckties because to me it is both precocious and that boys should be permitted their childhood. Others likely will disagree. I don’t want a law dictating either way.
I’m not with the above example trying to equate same sex marriage with necktie wearing because there is strong opinions on both sides. You look at it as a morality issue others look at it upon a civil rights issue and society and likely individuals change what is considered to be right or wrong over time and that is often reflected in laws and governance too I suppose.
Hi Darren.
In your response, you look beyond the fact that a certain behavior has been among us forever. You look for reasons why a law may or may not be necessary. This was my point, that mere long time existence of homosexual behavior is not a reason to prohibit legislation based upon it. We have to think more deeply about it and about how it affects both society and the individuals who embrace it.
You mentioned your objection to pedophilia based upon consent. What do you think about stories like the following? Do you recognize them as evidence for the ability of minors to give consent?
A Gay Man Speaks Out
http://www.nambla.org/gayman.html
“Molested” and Glad!
http://www.nambla.org/mglad.html
pete,
davidm2575
1, December 13, 2013 at 6:24 pm
lottakatz, comments like yours are why men of yon did not allow women to vote or engage in government and political discourse.
==========================================================
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=peckerhead
Oh, well; another lost in the tangle of authentication.
davidm2575,
“lottakatz, comments like yours are why men of yon did not allow women to vote or engage in government and political discourse.”
My brain hurts, again!
davidm2575
When did you “CHOOSE” to not be gay?
Since sexuality, as defined by you, is a “chosen behavior” and the “choice” of engaging in homosexual behavior is a “choice” by your standards…
… Then the same would be correct if applied to heterosexual behavior, NO?
If you will not allow me to own my sexuality as something intrinsic to who I am as something I was born with, then neither can you…
This underlines your greater PHOBIA… your own sexuality.
Max-1 wrote: “Since sexuality, as defined by you, is a “chosen behavior” and the “choice” of engaging in homosexual behavior is a “choice” by your standards…”
Sexuality is defined by both genetics and choices that we make. Our choices shape our sexual development, which is why most tend to protect children from having to make sexual choices too soon.
Max-1 wrote: “… Then the same would be correct if applied to heterosexual behavior, NO?”
Yes, of course.
Max-1 wrote: “If you will not allow me to own my sexuality as something intrinsic to who I am as something I was born with, then neither can you…”
You certainly have the right to own your sexuality. I think you make inaccurate assumptions about how I think.
We are not really all that different from each other, you and I. We are both human beings and both face the same kinds of issues in life.
davidm2575
1, December 13, 2013
Case in point…
… YOU schooling an out gay man about his sexuality.
Sick in the head.
… And it’s not me.
You pointing out a “logical fallacy” by making a false equivalence which is in itself a logical fallacy (it violates the law of identity and attempts to value load words) is sure an interesting way to not show bias and/or emotion.
You keep using the word “logic” yet you repeatedly demonstrate no mastery of the subject.
Just so, you keep using the tools of propaganda without understanding their function either hence your technique is clumsy and transparent.
Claiming to be unbiased and unemotional while using a presentation technique that both applies bias and value loading (which inherently plays to emotion over logic)?
Such ham fisted efforts really are laughable, David.
Gene H wrote: “You pointing out a “logical fallacy” by making a false equivalence…”
I never made a false equivalence. The point was about how long certain behaviors have been present in society. I could have used a lot of examples, including alcoholism, drug abuse, or even murder. You let your emotions and bias get in the way of your logic so you see false equivalency based upon your false stereotype of what you think I am trying to say.
David, a mention of ‘teh gay’ brings you like a moth to a flame and your aim is always the same: hijack a thread to argue the virtue (or lack thereof) of ‘teh gay’. It generally ends up as a religious discussion or a discussion with strong religious overtones. Srsly, do you belong to a religious group that has this kind of trolling as a ‘mission’ or do you belong to a politically sponsored group that has this kind of trolling as a political aim, to stifle a discussion on civil rights and redirect it elsewhere starting at square 1: ‘purpose-driven sex’ each time.? It’s so predictable I really do wonder what the back-story is because at this point, I can’t believe it’s still fun.
lottakatz, comments like yours are why men of yon did not allow women to vote or engage in government and political discourse. Not without coincidence, such also is related to feminism and effeminate men and hence the topic of the spurious gay rights movement. I belong to no religious group, nor have I ever made a religious argument here about sexual behavior. I also made no attempt to hijack the thread, but rather I just pointed out a logical fallacy. Arguments should not be based in emotion and bias, but rather they should embrace logic. The object is truth not fun.
Tony C:
“Putin denounced the “review of norms of morality” in the West and said that “the destruction of traditional values from above not only entails negative consequences for society, but is also inherently anti-democratic because it is based on an abstract notion and runs counter to the will of the majority of people.””
What do you know, you and Putin on the same page, who would have ever guessed?
So David,
If there’s a law agains it….that means people won’t do it right….. Do I have some real estate to sell you…. Just my interest in it…. Not more…..
davidm2575
1, December 13, 2013 at 12:00 pm
You are sick in the head.
The topic isn’t about how straights commit acts so depraved that they’re criminalized…
… The topic is about civil rights for gays.
That you conflate the two is a sure sign you’re brain washed or a nut.
Max-1 wrote: “The topic is about civil rights for gays.”
How do you define gay? I assume you are not defining it as “lighthearted and carefree” nor as “foolish or stupid.” I assume you mean homosexuals, and because we are talking about laws which concern behavior and not how a person thinks or feels, we are talking about homosexual behavior, which means that we are talking about sodomy, a sexual behavior that serves no natural purpose.
So you want to argue for their rights to engage in this behavior, fine, but do not argue for it on the basis that there have been people doing this kind of behavior forever. Use rational arguments about the benefits of such behavior.
DavidM:
If laws against bestiality were enforced, I wonder how many country folk would be in jail?
Or are they just all talk?
What harm is there in poking a goat? Not that I endorse goat poking but should there be a law against it? Same goes for homosexuality and there are laws against having sex with minors which is a bad thing.
Bron wrote: “…there are laws against having sex with minors which is a bad thing.”
I was just trying to point out the error in logic being made, that supposedly because something has been around forever that such would indicate legislation concerning it would be futile. The point seems to have been lost on most here because everybody has their own prejudice about what they want.
Not everybody in our society agrees that having sex with minors is a bad thing. Surely you know that.
It seems to me that here in America there is a brewing conflict between the modern interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First.
Though now cast to the states it seems just a matter of time before it reappears at the Supreme Court. Will Justice Kennedy’s strong views against the anti-gay position cause him to trump the First with the Fourteenth?
As Scalia said will the “other shoe drop”?
False equivalencies are the most base of all logical errors as they distort definitions by false correlation.
Darren wrote: “Ironic it is where the justification is on traditional values, since gay people have been around for, like, ever. Legislate it and it will go away. Not !”
Many crimes have been around forever. Bestiality, incest and pedophilia have been around forever, so would you then argue that we should not have laws that address the problems created by these sexually immoral behaviors?
Thirty three US states have bans. There is no hope in Texas, Oklahoma or the rest of the south with respect to removing the bans.
This blows….. Another straight decision…..
Hopefully the Austrialian one can be legislated on the federal level. Again, hopefully is the operative.
Sad also to see once again the Russian gov’t is scapegoating another demographic of citizens to appease the church and in its mind declaring themselves to be the solution.
Ironic it is where the justification is on traditional values, since gay people have been around for, like, ever. Legislate it and it will go away. Not !
Evolution from left to right.