The Good. The Bad. The Asinine.

There has been a lot of talk about referendums¹ lately. There is, of course, the local government referendum that has been the talk of dinner parties from Waitara to Wahroonga and everywhere in between. But all talk of that tremendously important and widely-publicised issue ceased when independent MP Tony Windsor called for a referendum on marriage equality. Christian and Muslim groups soon followed suit. Selfish bastards. I wanted to talk about local government.

So that’s what I’m going to do.

Here are all the things I know about local government in general, and the related referendum in particular:

1. I have a local government.
2. They make me put my bins out on Wednesday night. In my undies, too, because I never seem to remember until after I’m in bed.
3. There may or may not be a referendum on local government on September 14.

Aaaaand I’m out. I don’t sound very qualified to vote in a referendum on local government, do I? Perhaps I should:

1. Shelve my hatred of local government (a fairly big ask, given that they force me to drag bins around in my undies);
2. Go and find out what the actual question is, and what the consequences of a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ vote might be;
3. Reach a decision based on facts, reason, and the best interests of the people who will be directly affected.

Sounds like a plan.

Actually, now that I think about it, there are a few people who probably aren’t qualified to vote in that other referendum, either. People like Fred Nile, for example. The only thing is he probably doesn’t realise it. So, Fred, if you’re listening, I’ve prepared this helpful guide to help you decide if you should bother voting should the referendum go ahead.

See you on September 14, Fred. Or not.

_____________
Footnotes

1. Or referenda. Whatever.

My good mate Chris has just agreed to become a regular contributor here at Good Bad Asinine. Yaaaaay!

There are only three things you need to know about Chris:

1. He’s a lot smarter than me;
2. He writes a lot more coherently;
3. He actually knows what he’s talking about.

I’ll let him tell you more about himself, and the sorts of things he might write about.

Keep a look out for his posts. You’ll be able to tell they’re his by the name “Chris” in the top right corner.

This is a guest post from my good friend, Chris. Enjoy.
_____

A few days ago, American TV personality Jimmy Kimmel took to the streets to ask average Americans about the Sequester. His thesis was that a large number of Americans would know next to nothing about what the Sequester was and that hilarity would therefore ensue.

For those of us Australians who aren’t clear on this issue, the Sequester is basically a package of 85 billion USD in compulsory spending cuts, equally unpopular with both sides of politics, which President Obama uses as a sort of Damoclean Sword for the purposes of forcing budget compromise.

Mr Kimmel, proceeding on the basis of his thesis, framed the question: “What do you think of Obama pardoning the Sequester and sending it to Portugal?” which, in light of what it actually is, makes no sense whatsoever.

If the much vaunted Human capacity for reason had been in play, all that this question should have produced is bewilderment. What it actually produced was a broad range of strongly stated, strongly held opinions. These included:

• Portugal already has enough Sequesters.
• Sending the Sequester to Portugal costs American jobs.
• An American Sequester belongs in America.
• South Korea should not be allowed to make a robot terrorist.

This last one arose from a belief that the Sequester is a type of robot terrorist.

Now, it is easy to dismiss this subhuman idiocy as more typically American buffoonery, but to do so would be very wrong. The same tendency to form opinions based on exactly no evidence at all is to be found in all countries and in all walks of life.

In between cheap jokes about paedophile priests we find people who believe that the Vatican Conclave should, for reasons that are not clear, not be taking place. The simple fact of the matter is that the Cardinals are legally required to have one – yes, legally – in order to elect a Head of State. A great many people believe that on Mardi Gras night a certain police officer should either have beaten a certain young man to death or, alternatively, rubbed his bottom gently with jojoba oil, no matter what it was that he had done. I am fairly certain that very few of these active opiners understand the balance of the fundamental principles of the issue at hand, these being: The Role of the Police in Society, Proportionality of Force and The Universal Right to Self Defence.

We roll our eyes and throw up our hands at the woeful, even simian state of public debate in this country and yet, quick as a flash, almost every single one of us is willing to take up figurative arms in fields of combat where we are uncertain as to the combatants, their cause, or even the approximate location of the field.

This, in short, is stupid. If we know nothing about an issue, it follows logically that we are very unlikely to have anything sensible or valuable to say about it. So for what reason do we feel compelled to form an opinion on every twenty second sound bite shoveled into our maws by the media? Why do I spend such an inordinate amount of time listening to drunkards and taxi drivers expatiating on macro-economics, geopolitics and international diplomacy?

Do you know how to tell an intelligent person from an idiot? One good indication is that when confronted with something about which they are wholly ignorant, intelligent people tend to shut the fuck up.

This is not to say that everyone everywhere should stop talking about the issues of the day. It is of vital importance that we do so – it is a fundamental pillar of what remains of the ideals of democracy that political activity and discussion is not just a right, but a responsibility of good citizens everywhere.

But please, please, pretty please, in the name of all that is sacred and profane: If you do not know what you are talking about – DON’T!

If, however, you do feel compelled to take a position on something (and I encourage everyone to do so), spend a little bit of the time you would have spent pretending to know what you are talking about to actually find out something about it.

Most issues are complex enough. It is simply bloody-minded to further confuse them with the quackspeak of the willfully ignorant.

We’ve been hearing a lot about civility lately, or rather, the lack of it. Sometimes a little civility goes a long way. And sometimes it’s nothing more than a debating tactic; an excuse to air views that don’t deserve much airing.

We can, and should, have a civil discussion on the way we price carbon. But should we really entertain a civil discussion on, say, whether women should have their voting rights renounced? Are all discussions equal?

For Peter Jensen, the answer is apparently ‘yes’:

I’m looking for a respectful and serious discussion of very important issues.
- Q&A

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

Except it isn’t.

You can’t sit there and ask for a nice, civil conversation when you have absolutely no intention of changing your mind. You can’t enjoy the tax-free status provided by the LGBTI community, and use it to fund your denial of their basic rights. You can’t ignore all of the polite rebuttals to your fallacious slippery slope, and claim that marriage equality will lead to bestiality and incest, again, and again, and again. You can’t lie, and distort, and cheat, and then get upset when we tell you to fuck off.

And, above all, you can’t ask for civility, and a respectful consideration of your views, when those views are entirely based on the belief that homosexuality is evil, even if you’re not a complete wanker, and don’t think it should be criminalised.

But don’t despair. There are things you can do. You can go away and have a long, hard think about whether marriage equality will actually affect you, personally. You can think about whether it will give some joy to a group of people that have been discriminated against for a long, long time. You can do some reading, and learn that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, and the world isn’t divided neatly into “men with dicks” and “chicks with coochies”. You can realise that whether marriage equality happens or not, we will still have same-sex couples, and some of those couples will raise children, and the world won’t explode.

And when you’re finished doing all of that, and you’re still against marriage equality, there’s only one thing left for you to do: take your civility, and shove it.

When the bigotry barrel is nearly bare, you will often hear a same-sex marriage opponent heave a sigh of exasperation, and protest that we should be focusing on the real issues. Irony isn’t their strong point.

The argument in a nutshell
Same sex marriage isn’t important to me personally. Not at all. I just fight it tooth and nail because I really enjoy pointless debate about things that don’t concern me.

What they’re really trying to say
Can’t you and your rational arguments just leave us alone?!

The Smackdown
Jim and Bob are housemates. They’re quite different, and not particularly good friends, but they manage to live in the same house without too much trouble.

One day, they decide to go for a walk together.

Jim: Nice day, eh Bob?

Bob: Very nice! Did you remember to lock the front door?

Jim: I did indeed.

Bob: Great! Ah bugger… I forgot my coat! I’d better go back and grab it. Can I have the house keys?

Jim: Haha… no, you can’t.

Bob: I’m sorry?

Jim: No need to apologise, Bob. I’m ready to move on if you are.

Bob: Hang on… you’re seriously not going to give me the keys so I can get my coat?

Jim: Correct.

Bob: Why on earth not?

Jim: Well Bob, as you can see I remembered to bring my coat. It’s nice, eh? I think it really suits me. But, your coat, Bob… well… I mean, come on…

Bob: What’s that supposed to mean?

Jim: I really didn’t want to get into this, Bob. But since you asked… Quite frankly, your coat is a bit crappy.

Bob: Firstly, isn’t that a matter of personal taste? And secondly, how is that a reason for not letting me go back and get it?

Jim: Glad you asked, Bob! No, it isn’t a matter of personal taste. You coat is clearly inferior to mine. And if I was to be seen standing next to you, me in my awesome coat and you in your crappy one, mine just wouldn’t look as good.

Bob: Haha, well I don’t particularly want to stand next to you anyway, so that won’t be a problem. Can I just have the keys please?

Jim: Of course not! Have you not been listening?

Bob: Come on, Jim… I really think you’re being a bit silly.

Jim: OH MY FUCKING GOD JUST SHUTUP ABOUT YOUR STUPID FUCKING COAT THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT.
___

Yes, there are. And we’d like to move on, too. If only you’d let us.

We’ve all heard this one before – allowing same sex marriage is just the start of a slippery slope which leads inexorably to absolute ruin. The thin edge of a drag queen’s wedge. The big gay straw that will break the camel’s back, where the camel is us, and its back is life as we know it. Or, in the immortal words of Republican Arizona Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth:

I guess [it would mean] you could marry your horse.

It may just be Mr Hayworth’s name, but that almost sounds hopeful. Here comes the bridle, indeed.

The argument in a nutshell
Same sex marriage is the root of all evil.

What they’re really trying to say
We’re out of ideas, so we’re going to distract everyone by yelling “KIDDY FUCKERS!”.
___

Despite Mr Hayworth’s poorly-disguised wishful thinking, the argument labours under three rather fatal delusions.

The Smackdown Part 1 – Assumed Inevitability
No one ever seems to explain exactly how the slippery slope will get going. It’s just taken for granted that a large proportion of the population wants to, say, marry horses, but they’re a bit shy, and waiting for same-sex marriage to be legalised before they ask. A bit like when you’re out at dinner, and you wait for everyone to get their meals before doing a big crap on the table.

That sounds ridiculous, of course, but the (lack of) logic is the same. Take one perfectly innocuous event, and just blindly link it with something completely outrageous, with no further explanations necessary.

Which I guess means we can link the possible though extraordinarily unlikely existence of a magical bronze age zombie carpenter with the institutionalised sexual predation of minors. Oh, hang on…

The Smackdown Part 2 – Assumed Immorality
Not everyone is stupid enough to link same sex marriage with something as ridiculous as equine romance – some are content to merely link it to, say, polygamy. In this case, it’s not just inevitability that is assumed, but immorality.

There’s no question that the polygamy practiced by countless religious sects is immoral (hey Mormons!), or at the very least, sexist (hello to you too, Muslims). But we shouldn’t let a few perverted misogynists spoil it for the rest of us.

There isn’t anything inherently wrong with polygamy between consenting adults. Unless you’re in the Fun Police.

The Smackdown Part 3 – The False Start
The people who make this argument assume that the “slippery slope” looks something like this:

Pretty scary, eh? The funny thing is, they never consider that perhaps their precious slippery slope actually looks like this:

That is, the argument just takes for granted that same sex marriage is the tipping point. The one thing that will lead to moral oblivion. But, if you think about it, wasn’t heterosexual marriage the thing that led to same sex marriage? And doesn’t “people going to the movies and shit” lead to heterosexual marriage? So isn’t the real start of the slippery slope “people going to the movies and shit”? How far back should we go?

If the argument has any merit at all, the only way to avoid the complete and utter destruction of society is for us all to just all stay at home, with our eyes closed and our fingers in our ears. Because a single glance at someone of the opposite sex will set us all off on a vuwy, vuwy scawy slippery slope. And you know what that means.

We’ll all end up as KIDDY FUCKERS!

Or watching Alf re-runs.

This argument is probably just as common as “marriage is between a man and a woman”, but its proponents are convinced it’s impossible to shake. Well I’m about to shake the shit out of it.

The argument in a nutshell
WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

What they’re really trying to say
Get your filthy gay hands off our kids. Also, gay love is gross. It says so in the bible.

The Smackdown- Part 1
The first thing to note is that this argument has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Nothing. Much like straight couples, same sex couples simply don’t need marriage to have children. They are already free to adopt (in the ACT, WA and NSW at least), and there is nothing to stop a lesbian couple, for example, obtaining sperm from one of their male friends and conceiving a child, with a turkey baster the apparent weapon of choice. In fact, I know of three couples that have done just that – my uncle is gay, and donated his sperm to two lesbian friends; another of my gay friends did the same; and a lesbian friend obtained the sperm of her partner’s brother. Obviously, none of these couples are married. Gay couples will continue to adopt, or conceive children of their own, with or without same sex marriage.

If you want to argue against same sex parenting, go and do that somewhere else. You’ll still lose, but at least you’ll just be wrong, rather than wrong and irrelevant.

The Smackdown – Part 2
That should be the end of the argument, but, unfortunately, it’s not. As misguided as it is, it seems to have some traction, and not just with the religious bigots. Indeed, I have spoken with many liberal, open-minded people who not only agree that children need a mother and a father, but also think that it’s somehow relevant to the same sex marriage debate. So, let’s assume for the moment that it is relevant, and allowing same sex marriage will lead to a significant increase in same sex parenting. There are, then, two components to the argument:

1. Premise
   All other things being equal, any children raised by same sex parents are likely to be worse off than the children of straight parents; and
2. Conclusion
   The degree to which they are worse off is large enough that we want to actively prevent same sex couples from raising children.

Let’s look at the conclusion first. If we temporarily accept the premise, and we say that same sex couples don’t fit our definition of “ideal” parents, should we actively prevent them from raising children?

To answer that, let’s go ahead and construct this set of “ideal” parents. What traits would we give them? Well, for starters, it’s probably a good idea that they actually want children. We’d probably also want them to be loving, compassionate, dedicated, generally responsible, of a certain age, financially independent, and have a strong support network (grandparents, aunts, uncles etc). We also wouldn’t want them to be racist, or walruses, or Jim Wallace. If we really sat down and thought about it, we could probably list 1,000 things that we’d want our ideal parents to be (or not to be, as Hamlet would say).

We could then rank all of our desirable and undesirable characteristics in order of importance. For example, we could say that having walruses for parents would be marginally better than having Jim Wallace, and therefore place “Not Jim Wallace” above “Not walruses” on our list. If we proceeded in this way for each combination, we would eventually have a list of all 1,000 characteristics in order of relative importance. Such a list may look something like this:

Ideal parents should:

1. Not be Jim Wallace;

2. Not be walruses;

3. Actually want children;

4. Love and respect each other;

5. Be responsible;

6. Be older than, say, 16;

.

.

.

999. Love Deepak Chopra;

1000. Know what “transubstantiation” is.

Now, the opponents of same sex marriage will tell you that “Must have parents of opposite gender” is pretty important – so important, in fact, that they want to actively prevent same sex couples from raising children. Which brings us to the crux of the matter – where would they place it on our list? Would they say it was the most important?

I seriously doubt it. Surely even the most intractable bigot would admit that a child would be worse off with a couple of white-supremacist heteros than some nice, clean-cut queers. If that is indeed the case (and I would love to meet someone who disagreed), they must argue that there are potentially quite a few reasons to actively prevent people from parenting. But they don’t argue that at all.

If “white-supremacist heteros” seem a bit far-fetched for you, how about this? A lot of the opposition to same sex marriage comes from Christians. Now, if you’re a Christian, and you believe that the fate of your eternal soul depends on an abject submission to Jesus, wouldn’t you consider being Christian as the most important thing for parents to be? I mean, what’s worse, having gay parents or spending eternity in hell? If these guys had any intellectual honesty at all, or even the vaguest idea of argumentative consistency, they would be out there campaigning to ban all non-Christians from having children. Especially atheists. And Scientologists. But, as I said, they don’t.

Even Jim Wallace isn’t that stupid.

The bottom line is that, as a society, there are many things we’d like parents to be. But it’s simply illogical to single out same sex couples for exclusion, when any two lazy, irresponsible, violent, drug-addled, Satan-worshipping anti-vaxers can have as many children as they like… as long as they have the right “bits”.

The Smackdown – Part 3
So… We’ve just seen that even if we accept the premise that children raised by same sex parents are worse off, there are still no good reasons to prevent them from becoming parents.

But, do we have to accept the premise? Absolutely not.

Study after study after study has shown that children raised by same sex couples have psychosocial outcomes no worse than the children of heterosexual couples. In fact:

The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.
- Wikipedia

Or, if you don’t believe Wikipedia, how about the Australian Psychological Society, who said that:

The family studies literature indicates that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting and relationships within the family) that contribute to determining children’s wellbeing and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents. The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.

Or, if won’t take their word for it, what about the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, or the Canadian Psychological Association? And that’s just North America.

But here’s the kicker, and the ultimate reason why this whole argument is completely bogus. It wouldn’t matter how much evidence you gathered to show that same sex couples are just as good at parenting as their heterosexual peers, the majority of the people who make this argument – that is, religious people – will never change their minds.

And if you’re not willing to enter an argument with a view that’s amenable to change, you’re simply not worth arguing with.
___

So, what are we left with? An argument that is not only irrelevant, but has a false premise and an illogical conclusion, made by close-minded, dogmatic bigots. In short, this argument couldn’t be more wrong if it was made by Bill O’Reilly in a sequined mankini.

And that’s pretty damn wrong.

Via Bimmo.

Let’s start with the most common – marriage is between a man and a woman.

The argument in a nutshell
When arguing for changing the definition of something, you can just repeat the existing definition over and over again.

What they’re really trying to say
Gay love is gross. It says so in the bible.

The Smackdown
This has to be one of the most juvenile, illogical, anti-intellectual and downright idiotic arguments I have ever seen… for anything… ever. It’s exactly the sort of thing Lionel Hutz would say:

Judge
Mr. Hutz, we’ve been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?

Hutz
Well, your Honor, we’ve got plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are kinds of evidence…

Sure, lots of things have definitions that we don’t really want to change. For example, if I ask you to pass me the salt, I want to know that you and I have the same definition of “salt”. I mean, let’s face it, dinner would be really awkward if you’ve defined “salt” as your penis. Social constructs just aren’t like that. We invent them, we can change them.

To give you an idea of just how stupid this argument is, let’s go back in time, and see if it would have worked against the changing of some other socially-determined definition.

Women:
We want the vote!

Men:
Haha, that’s funny!

Women:
Umm… why is that funny?

Men:
Because only men can vote!

Women:
Yeah we know, that’s what we’re trying to change.

Men:
You can’t change it, silly! Look… I have the law right here. See? Right there… “Only men may vote in elections”.

Women:
You’re not getting it. That’s what we want to change. We want to vote, too.

Men:
But you can’t – only men can vote!

Need some more examples? How about these:

Aborigines:
We want to be counted as citizens!

Whites:
Sorry, but only white people can be citizens.

.

Women:
Equal pay for equal work!

Men:
Sorry, but we get paid more than you.

.

African Americans:
We don’t want to be slaves!

White Americans:
Sorry, but you are.

How do those arguments all sound? Stupid. Incredibly stupid.

Arguing against change by simply acknowledging the existence of an arbitrary status quo is one of the dumbest things you can do. If the “Marriage is between a man and a woman” argument is sound, then we may as well just go back to being cavemen, because it renders invalid every single social advancement our species has ever made.

But perhaps that’s exactly what the opponents of same-sex marriage are after.

OK, I’ve finally had enough of the same-sex marriage “debate”. It’s not a debate. A debate is what occurs when an inconclusive proposition is put forward for rational discussion. But nothing about this debate is inconclusive. And only one side is discussing it rationally (that’s the affirmative, in case you’re wondering).

It’s time to beat this “debate” into submission. Over the next couple of weeks, I’ll be ripping the “arguments” against same-sex marriage apart.

Starting with this one.