Tonight: Why same-sex marriageshould not be legalised

www.samesame.com.au
  • 7
  • 0
  • 1693

Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore and a leading ‘queer theory’ academic will tonight pick apart the increasingly uncontroversial topic of marriage equality. Is it something we really need?

The debate, part of the Intelligence Squared series run by the St James Ethics Centre, will see the University of Sydney’s Professor Annamarie Jagose argue in support of the motion ‘Same sex marriage should not be legalised’, with Moore in opposition to it.

“Allowing some gay men and lesbians to marry will not stop marriage from being exclusionary,” Professor Jagose, who is pro-gay, explains. “Marriage recognises the worth of some relationships by raising them over the worth of others.”

“I’m hoping to persuade a few people that there is a progressive, pro-gay perspective that is not in favour of the legalisation of same-sex marriage,” she adds. “Positions on this issue are fairly entrenched and I think the pro-gay anti-marriage position is given less air time in public discussion than some other perspectives.

When asked about the symbolic nature of marriage for gays and lesbians, Professor Jagose responds: “I am drawn instead to the symbolism of the collective refusal of marriage as a political goal for lesbians and gay men.”

Alongside Professor Jagose will be Professor Nick Tonti-Filippini, Associate Dean and head of Bio-Ethics at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family. And joining Clover Moore in arguing for same-sex marriage to be legalised will be Mark Textor, an opinion pollster and former political adviser.

The debate will take place tonight (Tuesday May 29) from 6:45pm at the City Recital Hall in Sydney.

For more information and to book, see the City Recital Hall’s website here.

Social

Nobody has hearted this, be the first Be the first!

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
27924
MyHorseLikesYou

MyHorseLikesYou said on the 29th May, 2012

It's not just rich queers who'll be there. Look who just tweeted:

https://twitter.com/petermadden2u/status/207355161465716736

Perversion!

Loved david's reply to Madden's tweet though.

Ok long winded bit - sorry. Feel free to TLDNR.

I really don't get this at all. I mean I don't get why some people feel the need to attack a movement (for the lack of a better description) of people trying to fight for what they believe they should be able to have/ achieve & hypocritically using the idea of marriage being exclusionary to undermine that movement's argument. Essentially promoting what they claim to be against.

From my perspective "marriage equality' is about having that option should you so desire to utilise it, not denying those who don't want it. However it seems the other way around for those arguing against it. I also think it is rather delusional to try to justify the argument aganist marriage equality with the point that marriage is exclusionary. What would they wish? Marriage as an institution be demolished entirely. I don't think arguing against a group of people who have been denied the option of marriage is going to achieve that. Itseemsit's an argument in it's own right that has very little to do with marriage equality & if anything I think this is possibly being used as a mask for those that actually believe that marriage equality shouldn't be.

As for the proposed speakers, well...

“Allowing some gay men and lesbians to marry will not stop marriage from being exclusionary,” Professor Jagose, who is pro-gay, explains.

Is that the point of marriage equality though? To stop marriage from being exclusionary? Or is it about removing the denial of a certain section of society to that option of relationship recognition?

“Marriage recognises the worth of some relationships by raising them over the worth of others.”

I don't get this argument either. Is it a reference to certain rights afforded to married couples that aren't afforded to non married couples? Or is it a simple case of when I choose to eat a banana I'm not saying oranges are inferior?

“I’m hoping to persuade a few people that there is a progressive, pro-gay perspective that is not in favour of the legalisation of same-sex marriage,” she adds. “Positions on this issue are fairly entrenched and I think the pro-gay anti-marriage position is given less air time in public discussion than some other perspectives.

Actually I know there are people who essentially believe this, so I guess they have been getting some airtime to their perspective. Are they progressive? Or is that essentially an exclusionary term? Are they really pro-gay by trying to deny the option of marriage to the portion of the gay community that wishes to opt for it?

When asked about the symbolic nature of marriage for gays and lesbians, Professor Jagose responds: “I am drawn instead to the symbolism of the collective refusal of marriage as a political goal for lesbians and gay men.”

Denying one set of symbolism for the personal importance of another.

Alongside Professor Jagose will be Professor Nick Tonti-Filippini, Associate Dean and head of Bio-Ethics at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family.

Ahh Nick Tonti-Filippini. A man who the word entrenched can actually be used for. Here's a man who is staunchly catholic. Who has already stated opinion regarding why euthanasia (another possible personal choice - that has been denied to the population) should not be allowed.

"Facing illness and disability takes courage and we do not need those euthanasia advocates to tell us that we are so lacking dignity and have such a poor quality of life that our lives are not worth living."

I don't remember any euthanasia representative saying anything along the lines of anyone with a terminal illness should be euthanased. I think they actually just wanted it to be a personal choice for those that wished it. Much like those fighting for marriage equality.

He has gone on record essentially saying among other things, that marriage equality isn't about equality or discrimination it's about the rights of children to know, have access to and be nurtured by a mother & father.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/marriage-is-about-rights-of-the-children-20110905-1ju4e.html

Completely missing the large portion of society who are single parents. Not to mention those children that a parent plays no part in their life or is detrimental to their mental or physical wellbeing.

Oh & I believe he is in some capacity an advisor to Tony Abbott. Nuff said me thinks. I do however question the validity of the use of the term pro-gay in regard to Professor Annamarie Jagose when her supporting speaker as it seems to me, is so abhorrently against gay rights in general. Sure he sprouts political correct comments regarding the value of gays in society etc but when it comes to actually allowing what I believe should be legally recognised rights, well that's a different case entirely.

I just hope Clover & Mark can bring their A-game on the night as I think they are gonna need it. Although I am slightly bewildered by the idea that not one gay person is involved in the debate.

JFTR - I personally think the ideal solution would be to finally move toward complete removal of church & state by removing any reference to marriage in law. However I can't see that happening - the church is too entrenched (there's that word again).