Gay Marriage

[moXJO]

I do feel the marriage sanctity that society once strived for, in the face of people like me, men who miss treated their wives, couples who treated marriage as a contract rather than a union, children who were deprived of love and means, etc. is pretty much over. The eagerness that people have to hand over a custom merely shows how invaluable it is to the community, regardless of the significance it has for past generations and a vast number of extant couples.

One thing I agree with marriage, is it has become a look at me spectacle, followed by a quickie divorce.
Just bring in a 50% of net worth divorce tax. That will clarify the meaning of "For better or for worse".

 

[Value Collector]

Bringing in same sex marriage does not better society, it makes it worse,
.

So you keep saying, but I want you to explain how

and moves children down to second class citizens.

Does allowing a same sex couple to marry do that?

I think telling a gay child that they will never be able to marry is making them a second class citizen.

What does same sex marriage encourage?

It encourages the formation of committed relationships, it gives gay members of our society a sense that the rest of society values their existence and recognises their relationship.

How does it better society?

A society that rejects descrimination and values equality is a better place to live for all.

I also pointed out the gays that openly said they did not agree with changing marriage, and were hijacked by the gay mafia, and their businesses boycott.
That is not a free society, when they tell you how you have to be thinking.

In a free society you can boycott or do business with whom ever you want.

You have the right to say what ever you like, and I have the right to avoid doing business with you if I don't like what you are standing for. If I found out my local fish and chip guy was a racist neo nazi, I would not do business with him, I would probably go to the char grill chicken guy instead, thats my right in a free society.

I am not stopping him being a racist bigot, he still has that right. Freedom does not mean you are free from consequences. When I was is business, I have no doubt is some of my customers knew I was an athesit they would have not used my services.

 

[Value Collector]

I think I might have contributed to the moral decay way back in time, by living in sin for about five years,
.

The concept of sin is a construct, it's a way that the religious try to break your leg so they can sell you a crutch.

using contraception

Thats not bad, thats smart. Thats called being responsible, all you guys that say you care about the children should support contraception.

really liking sex (still do)

Again, thats not a sin, you're meant to enjoy sex. it was designed that way by evolution.

drinking, partying and swearing

.

None of those things are immoral, So long as your not harming anyone.

It's a wonder there wasn't a catholic priest sent around to exorcise the demons.

The eagerness that people have to hand over a custom merely shows how invaluable it is to the community, regardless of the significance it has for past generations and a vast number of extant couples

You say you want to continue marriage as a valued part of society, but there is a group of people fighting hard to try and take part in it, and you are resisting it.

If you are trying to promote criket as a sport, and you are afraid its significance is fading, don't cause a seen and try and ban womans criket, make it more inclusive, show the benefits of everyone living in commited marriages, I think the positive allowing gay marriage would be a net win for the whole concept of marriage.

I mean lets be real, a gays are already living together in committed longterm relationships, allowing them to marry is no going to do anything bad, it will be a public relations win for marriage in general.

 

[sydboy007]

I also pointed out the gays that openly said they did not agree with changing marriage, and were hijacked by the gay mafia, and their businesses boycott.
That is not a free society, when they tell you how you have to be thinking.

So if some Christians agree with same sex marriage that means other Christians should be quiet and just accept gay marriage? If you say some people are within their rights to refuse to serve gays due to religious beliefs, doesn't that mean others have the right to boycott those businesses since they conflict with their own moral code? That's why I like anti-discrimination laws, otherwise our society fractures and we end up with smaller tribes that don't really work together. It makes us a weaker poorer society.

Syd, I mentioned incestuous backdrop because there is no social order or morality, it just becomes a mess when you dismantle the most important institution for a civilised society.
Fathers and mothers are deemed not important, and there has been an attack on the fathers of late.
Keeping marriage as it is, makes it equal for society.

Rather than talking about rights, we need to talk about responsibilities and accountabilities.

Marriage is not being dismantled. The fact you cannot grasp this is why you are so concerned. Your marriage will not change one bit. There's no gay marriage in Iraq / Sudan / Yemen. Are you telling me they have functional civilised societies? People having hope and believing their children will have at least as good a future as they have had is probably the key stone to civilised society. Take that away and then citizens will start to question why they are members of their society. Failed states are the end game in these kinds of situations.

Without rights, there's generally no responsibilities. Where is the responsibility for the religious to own their actions rather than trying to portray themselves as victims?

Where is the evidence that in Denmark / Norway / Sweden / Iceland / Greenland that the decay of civilised society you're so fearful of has occurred? They are some of the richest countries in the world, with some of the best welfare metrics as well. It's possible that gay marriage, by making them a more equal and just society, has contributed to their social and economic performance.

Give me some evidence that what your saying may be correct and I'll definitely rethink my views on same sex marriage, but just continually throwing out what ifs and possibilities is useless. I'd argue a society that treats all members as equals is a stronger and more just society. One that treats women as second class citizens is weaker. One that treats minority races differently is weaker. One that discriminates against minorities is weaker. One that allows "I don't like you" to be a base of interaction is definitely weaker.

From the great wikipedia

Many psychologist organizations have concluded that children stand to benefit from the well-being that results when their parents' relationship is recognized and supported by society's institutions, e.g. civil marriage. For example, the Canadian Psychological Association stated in 2006 that "parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union."[19] The CPA stated in 2003 the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way society treats them than because of any deficiencies in fitness to parent.[19]

The American Academy of Pediatrics concluded in 2006, in an analysis published in the journal Pediatrics:[27]

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

 

[Macquack]

If a lesbian wants a child she should sleep with the father and include the father,in he childs life sperm donations should be illegal. Same for gay males they must father their child. They should have blood parents living in the same street or suburb so child has mom and dad on daily basis.

Good luck with that one.

I am wondering why you have not suggested getting the gays and lesbians together? That would FIX them and there would be nothing to talk about.

 

[Logique]

Gay marriage is the new global warming, and a great distraction for a besieged federal Opposition.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-or-just-a-bigot/story-fni0cwl5-1227427644953

..Just like climate change, and the push towards a republic in the late ‘90s, gay marriage has become the latest and greatest moral challenge of our times..

 

[SirRumpole]

Why not just abolish marriage completely, then everyone would be equal.

Really, if two people want to stay as a couple they will do do whether married or not, and plenty of people have been together a long time without getting married.

Marriage is more an initiative by business to get more revenue, like Mother's Day, Father's Day, Valentine's day etc. It's a con which says that you can only appreciate another person on this particular day, the rest of the time you treat them like a piece of furniture.

What would be the legal ramifications of abolishing marriage ? Not many I can see if more people are finding that they can do without it.

 

[Value Collector]

Why not just abolish marriage completely, then everyone would be equal.

Really, if two people want to stay as a couple they will do do whether married or not, and plenty of people have been together a long time without getting married.

Marriage is more an initiative by business to get more revenue, like Mother's Day, Father's Day, Valentine's day etc. It's a con which says that you can only appreciate another person on this particular day, the rest of the time you treat them like a piece of furniture.

What would be the legal ramifications of abolishing marriage ? Not many I can see if more people are finding that they can do without it.

I see marriage differently.

To me marrage can't be abolished, because you can't stop them happening, the government could choose to stop recognising them, but it can't get rid of them, because they happen naturally.

If you having been living with your partner for 10 years, and you are committed to each other, you have a marriage, the fact that you have not had a wedding or registered you marriage with the government doesn't change the fact that you have a marriage.

This is the problem I have with not recognising gay marriages, The gay marriage already exists, to not recognise them is just pure discrimination.

This is why I say marriage predates both governments and religions, so if a government wants to be in the business of recognising them, they need to stop descriminating on which ones they recognise

 

[SirRumpole]

This is why I say marriage predates both governments and religions, so if a government wants to be in the business of recognising them, they need to stop descriminating on which ones they recognise

So why should governments be in the business of recognising marriage ? That's why I asked about the legal implications of abolishing (or not recognising ) it.

 

[luutzu]

So why should governments be in the business of recognising marriage ? That's why I asked about the legal implications of abolishing (or not recognising ) it.

Tax, property dispute, will, trusts, child support - all the lovely stuff traditional marriages apparently do go through. Then through the census can better plan, say schools, roads, infrastructure, housing.

On the economic point of view, it makes sense; from the fair society point of view, perfect sense; from the democratic point where the majority of the population supporting or not, the majority supports... But for some reason it's still being debated and rejected by the people's representative.

 

[Value Collector]

So why should governments be in the business of recognising marriage ? That's why I asked about the legal implications of abolishing (or not recognising ) it.

It makes sense for it to be in the business of recognising various private agreements.

eg, it recognises property ownership for example.

Imagine if property ownership wasn't something that the government recognised, it would be alot harder to claim the things that are yours.

I guess there will always be debate on what the government should regulate and what they shouldn't, but we should all agree that when they do decide to regualte something it needs to be done fairly, and all citizens need to have equal treatment.

I mean imagine if they chose to only issue commericial fishing licences to heterosexuals, that would be pretty weird and unfair or only allowed partnerships of one man and one woman to enter a business partner ship.

 

[awg]

further to an earlier post, I had a chance to discuss the topic with a group of 18-30 yr olds last night

They were completely unanimous and outspoken in support, saying ALL all their peers agree

A reasonably diverse group, except with a very high educational average.

I wonder if there is ANY person under 30, on this forum, who is not STRONGLY religious, who doesnt support??

If a person such as myself (old & macho) has changed mind, how can it not be soon ?

In my view, it is the conservative religious minority forcing this needless resistance

I restate my abhorrence at this hypocrisy, having been brought up in Christianity, and seeing the prevalence of homosexuality amongst the clergy.

oh yes..and that dog-whistling by several govt ministers about this being a "media driven" agenda
well maybe a bit...I think their seems to be more "gay" people in the media, and ESPECIALLY the ABC/SBS.
A sly kick ? :frown:

 

[SirRumpole]

Imagine if property ownership wasn't something that the government recognised, it would be alot harder to claim the things that are yours.

Property ownership is a matter of commercial necessity to recognise, but people don't "own" their relationship partner so I don't really see the correlation.

 

[sydboy007]

Property ownership is a matter of commercial necessity to recognise, but people don't "own" their relationship partner so I don't really see the correlation.

Once again, you're using a very modern version of marriage. If the state doesn't formally recognise marriages, then how do you provide say a war widows pension, or in divorce, how would you divide property? If your partner is killed in an accident and not legally recognised as your partner, how would you be able to claim compensation?

By the 1870s the below started to be dismantled, which is relatively recent history.

Under traditional English common law, an adult unmarried woman was considered to have the legal status of feme sole, while a married woman had the status of feme covert. These terms are English spellings of medieval Anglo-Norman phrases (the modern standard French spellings would be femme seule "single woman" and femme couverte, literally "covered woman").

The principle of coverture was described in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in the late 18th century:

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage.

It was as recent as 1922 before woman had equal inheritance rights in the UK and USA.

We're only talking going back to our great grand parents early years to get to a time when women where as close to property of their husbands. For instance, a court case that lead to women gaining the rights they had to day:

Millicent Fawcett had her purse snatched by a youth in London. When the boy’s crime was read out in court Fawcett was shocked to hear him charged with stealing a purse which was ‘the property of Henry Fawcett’ (her husband).

Men may not mind going back to this traditional form of marriage, but I wonder if women would be so enamoured with it.

 

[Value Collector]

Property ownership is a matter of commercial necessity to recognise, but people don't "own" their relationship partner so I don't really see the correlation.

I didn't say they own their partner, I used property ownership as one example of where we benefit from the government recognizing the existence of certain social constructs.

Marriage is a social construct, and it's one that probably existed before property ownership, having the government recognize it has many benefits, but I agree if it can't recognize it fairly it should probably stop recognizing them at all.

 

[sydboy007]

I didn't say they own their partner, I used property ownership as one example of where we benefit from the government recognizing the existence of certain social constructs.

Marriage is a social construct, and it's one that probably existed before property ownership, having the government recognize it has many benefits, but I agree if it can't recognize it fairly it should probably stop recognizing them at all.

Could be easily done

marriage = what ever you you believe it to be. no recognition of the term in laws. basically just a way to announce your relationship

civil union = the legalities behind domestic relationships. all laws revolving around the marriages act would be changed to reflect the new term civil union.

Government steps out of any involvement in the world of marriage. The religious can continue to pretend to own the word marriage, the conservatives can claim a victory for defeating same sex marriage becoming a legal term, while the rest of us go on as we recognise the issue was really not that difficult.

 

[trainspotter]

One last time for comedy purposes only ....

Heather has two Mommies

Gay marriage doesn’t just redefine marriage, but also parenting. It promotes and normalizes a family structure that necessarily denies us something precious and foundational. It denies us something we need and long for, while at the same time tells us that we don’t need what we naturally crave. That we will be okay. But we’re not. We’re hurting.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

From a Queensland Doctors point of view ...

Bertrand Russell understood that society has no interest in passing laws about people's private affairs and that the primary reason for the public contract of marriage is to bind the man to the woman for the long task of rearing their children.

As he wrote in Marriage and Morals: "It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognisance of by a legal institution."

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/same-sex-marriage-hurts-kids/story-e6frerdf-1225954219291

I agree with sydboy007 ... give same sex people the legal rights as "married" couples and be done with the lexical semantics of the word. I can just see the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee that they now have an extra 10 - 20 % of the population to feed upon when it goes belly up.

 

[galumay]

When the ACT legalised same sex marriage in 2013, it went to the High Court, who ruled against it as invalid under the constitution.

This was because of the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act. Hence, a change to the Marriage Act is a change to the constitution.

I have been offline for a few days and missed all the action recently in this thread!

Interesting that you have proposed such an illogical conclusion - and you oppose gay marriage!

The reason the High Court declared the law unconstitutional is that the constitution says that where there is contradiction between federal and state law, the federal law shall take precedence. Because the Federal Law had been amended to restrict marriage to only being between a man and a woman, it then contradicted the ACT Law, hence the ruling.

If the Federal Law was changed back to its previous wording, or changed to specifically allow gay marriage then there would be no contradiction and no case for the High Court.

Another interesting thing i notice coming from some of the anti marriage mob is this perception that somehow because they are religious, marriage is something that 'belongs' with them and they dont want it being 'debased' by the rules being changed. Even in Australia where religious marriage has an elevated status, (religious leaders can perform legal marriages unlike many other countries where only state officials can marry people.), the laws that regulate marriage in Australia are entirely civil laws, enacted by the parliament.

In my mind the solution for those who wish to discriminate against certain people in marriage is simple, change the Marriage Act to remove the role of the church in marriage, have the role of 'celebrant' restricted to nominated state officials like the Mayor and make it a purely civil act. Then the churches can individually decide who and what they are going to discriminate against and if they want to restrict thier "marriage service" in their church to red headed, brown eyed, white skinned, right handed hetrosexuals so be it! - but they would still have to go and get married in a civil service if they wanted to be treated as 'married' by the state.

Finally, once again, if you dont like gay marriage, dont marry someone from the same gender!

 

[DB008]

I agree with sydboy007 ... give same sex people the legal rights as "married" couples and be done with the lexical semantics of the word. I can just see the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee that they now have an extra 10 - 20 % of the population to feed upon when it goes belly up.

Divorce lawyers and wedding planners - that is where you want to be at the moment....

 

[trainspotter]

Finally, once again, if you dont like gay marriage, dont marry someone from the same gender!

Post of the month and this thread