Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 307 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Australian State Getting Ready For Same Sex Marriage

The opponents of marriage equality for heterosexuals and homosexuals have argued that that equality isn’t tolerable because same-sex marriage isn’t traditional.

New South Wales is preparing to be the next place to declare: Tradition schmadition!  The parliament there is now preparing legislation to make same-sex marriages legally recognized.  It would be the first Australian state to do so.

All major political parties in New South Wales support the bill. It’s a reminder that tradition is relative. Every cultural tradition we have now was once a departure from tradition.

How about we start a new tradition in the United States: Let’s have it be an American tradition from now on to value being decent to people more than we value tradition.

8 comments to Australian State Getting Ready For Same Sex Marriage

  • Dave

    Tradition is relative? I haven’t heart that one before.

  • J Clifford

    Well, you may not have heard it before,but does that make it untrue?

    Would you seriously argue that tradition is not relative to time, or to cultural perception?

  • Dave

    Since the topic here is same-sex marriage one could seriously argue that, because there has only existed a tradition of opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage has no tradition to speak of (time), except of course in a counter-cultural underground sort of way. As we are living in the age of the Gramscian “deconstruction” of marriage, with a decreasing number of young people interested in the antiquated custom regardless of it’s definition (cultural perception), I suppose we can look for a day when the traditional, or customary thing to do will be not to marry at all.

    For same-sex marriage to become a tradition, it will have to survive the cultural Marxist juggernaut that intends to eventually make the idea of marriage irrelevant anyhow.

    • J Clifford

      Dave, I think we’re past the age of deconstruction, and the important concept that was deconstructed is that there is only one cultural system that can be constructed. We are now living in the age of multiple construction. We can enjoy the day when it’s recognized that there are many traditions people have to choose from, some of which include marriage, and some of which don’t.

      The only people who lose in this are those who were hoping that their own cultural system could be imposed on everyone else as the monolithic tradition for all.

      You surely have noticed that, wherever marriage equality is legally recognized, there’s a rush of people to get married. I don’t think it’s apt to associate the increase in scope of marriage with a decreased interest in it. That some heterosexuals choose not to get married is a separate issue, part of a trend that was in existence long, long before legalization of same-sex marriage.

      Cultural Marxist juggernaut? Where is this juggernaut in Australia, or in America? I haven’t seen it. Is it hiding in the parking garage at the mall?

      What is cultural Marxism, anyway? Is it at all related to musical Marxism, or olfactory Marxism, or amusement park Marxism?

  • Dave

    C’mon,J. My comments above are my own observation that the idea of same-sex marriage is becoming relevant at the same time marriage itself is becoming irrelevant. It’s what one might call the irony of it all.

    Speaking of irony, cultural Marxism, or Gramscianism is everywhere and has been the mainspring of social changes in the West from the mid-twentieth century up to the present, and you say you haven’t seen it.

  • Dave

    Sorry J. I was trying too hard to have a serious discussion. I like commenting on this site because, in a “what doesn’t kill me makes me better” sort of way, by challenging the assumptions of some usually pretty smart people I figure my own assumptions will be challenged in return. Didn’t mean to waste your time.

    • J Clifford

      Dave, I don’t think you’re understanding my point. You’re making extreme statements, such as that “cultural Marxism”, which only really turns out to be “Gramscianism”, which isn’t really classic Marxism, is “EVERYWHERE”. Everywhere is a big category, Dave, and if you want to have a smart and serious discussion, you need to start by using language accurately.

      If you would take the care to use language accurately, you might take greater appreciation of the strangeness of the claim that marriage will be made more culturally relevant if we don’t allow large numbers of people to get married.

      “C’mon”?!? You’re suggesting that we’re moving toward a society in which no one gets married at all. You’re making a sloppy confusion between cultural diversification and cultural extinction. You c’mon, Dave. If you really want to have a smart discussion, you have to step up to the plate and clear out your cobwebs.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>