Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[400miles]

If you would really like to keep this argument up and ruin yet another thread then feel free to keep going, I can go as long as you like. However, this is an argument going strongly here that I would like to leave uncluttered so my suggestion is that we leave this... Obviously, neither of us are going to concede to each other.

 

[Rorix]

Why that's odd 400miles, I thought you said you were tired of my constant ability to miss the point?

What you're saying is, even if gays are deprived of a right to marriage, it doesn't follow that that's not moral. Accordingly then, if a man and woman were prohibited from marrying, then that would be a perfectly moral restriction also?

Hrm, what I was trying to get across was that even if gays are being deprived of the right to marriage, it doesn't necessarily follow that they should be given this right, due to the "reason not to" clause.

I thought you might say that. I agree of course that people might marry for economic reasons, and that there can be marriage without sex, etc. But in general could we assume people want to marry for love? If so I think this point holds up.

Disagree. In Victorian England, people wanted to marry for wealth/status. Does it follow that a marriage which wasn't for wealth/status wasn't somehow a 'real' marriage? You can have love without marriage, and you can have marriage without love. If it's just a binding agreement to love, then I don't see why a civil union wouldn't be acceptable. A civil union wouldn't be treating gay love as somehow inferior to heterosexual love - as we've noted, marriage and love have no binding links.

There is no discrimination, but there is inequality - one group can do something, another cannot - surely there is therefore an imbalance in the rights of those groups?

Everyone has the right to kill blue-eyes. Nobody has the right to kill green eyes. Basically, the problem is arising, I think, because I'm looking at the law from an objective view, and you're looking at the law from a subjective view (that is, you are adopting the viewpoint of a homosexual). While I acknowledge the merit of a subjective viewpoint, I think that law should be viewed from an objective viewpoint, such that it is free of bias.

 

[poloktim]

Everyone has the right to kill blue-eyes. Nobody has the right to kill green eyes. Basically, the problem is arising, I think, because I'm looking at the law from an objective view, and you're looking at the law from a subjective view (that is, you are adopting the viewpoint of a homosexual). While I acknowledge the merit of a subjective viewpoint, I think that law should be viewed from an objective viewpoint, such that it is free of bias.

Rorix, I can understand how you're looking at it from an objective point of view, but it seems a little pedantic to me. I also agree with you to a point. The law should be seen from an objective viewpoint to a certain extent. However, should there be controversy involved, a subjective viewpoint should be taken into consideration. This can be shown whenever any government (local, state or federal) have what is called conscience votes, that is, they vote on the passage of legislation based on what they think is right, and not what the electorate think is right (or normally, since the electorate really isn't represented, what the party thinks is right).

Take this for instance, it is subjective, because the issue is controversial.

P). The law states that a man and a woman can marry each other, that is two people in a heterosexual relationship can marry each other, but two people in a same-sex relationship cannot marry each other. - True
Q). The law appears to be biased towards heterosexual relationships. - From a subjective viewpoint, because this is controversial, true.

(P ^ (P==>Q) ==> Q) - Modus Ponens.
If P and P implies Q are both tautologies then Q is a tautology.
If the law states that a man and a woman can marry each other, that is two people in a heterosexual relationship can marry each other, but two people in a same-sex relationship cannot marry each other and the law states that a man and a woman can marry each other, that is two people in a heterosexual relationship can marry each other, but two people in a same-sex relationship cannot marry each other implies the law appears to be biased towards heterosexual relationships, then the law appears to be biased towards heterosexual relationships.

Disagree. In Victorian England, people wanted to marry for wealth/status. Does it follow that a marriage which wasn't for wealth/status wasn't somehow a 'real' marriage? You can have love without marriage, and you can have marriage without love. If it's just a binding agreement to love, then I don't see why a civil union wouldn't be acceptable. A civil union wouldn't be treating gay love as somehow inferior to heterosexual love - as we've noted, marriage and love have no binding links.

Is the law not to protect the "sanctity" of marriage though? Which makes me ask, according to the lawmakers, what do they mean by "sanctity" of marriage?

 

[eviltama]

Hrm, what I was trying to get across was that even if gays are being deprived of the right to marriage, it doesn't necessarily follow that they should be given this right, due to the "reason not to" clause.

'even if' there is no 'even if', its a fact.. gays are being deprived the right to marriage. Is there a reason, just 1 solid reason that applies to all people regardless of race, religion or other defining attribute why they shouldn't have the right to marry? If the answer is no, then why is this an issue? I can't think of a reason, i asked my parents, my sister and my friends (here and overseas) and none of them could think of one either. (Note: a fair number of the people i asked are against the idea.) The government gave women the right to vote, gave aboriginals the right to vote, and has given so many other groups rights which they were denied for similar reasons to the ones presented in this thread (tradition, threat to culture, to society etc etc), but yet now those things are taken for granted just like marriage is taken for granted by heterosexuals. And now that there is a threat to their exclusive hold on it they've headed for the hills to get their pitchforks. Same as men against suffrage, same as alot of non-aboriginals...

Disagree. In Victorian England, people wanted to marry for wealth/status. Does it follow that a marriage which wasn't for wealth/status wasn't somehow a 'real' marriage? You can have love without marriage, and you can have marriage without love. If it's just a binding agreement to love, then I don't see why a civil union wouldn't be acceptable. A civil union wouldn't be treating gay love as somehow inferior to heterosexual love - as we've noted, marriage and love have no binding links.

Yes a marriage that is for wealth/status isn't a "real" marriage. It's a marriage in name only, its a marriage for his money, its a marriage for her family... its not a marriage for better or for worse till death do us part forever into eternity and beyond because i'd die for you thats how much i love you marriage. Sure there is love without marriage, sure there is marriage without love. A bf and gf have love without marriage, and a on-their-way-to-being-divorced couple have marriage without love. It doesn't imply that all marriage is loveless, and all love is marriageless. Yes a civil union would be treating homosexual love as less than equal, or less important, or less true than heterosexual love. Look at some forms for.. anything really and i don't see boxes for 'civil partners' or 'defacto relationships'. You are single, married, divored. A Ms, Miss, Mrs or a Mr. Heterosexuals currently look down upon defacto couples, and what is a civil union... a defacto relationship with a signature? It won't be held to the regard marriage is, regardless of how many times people say 'oh no just give them civil unions they don't need to marry' and you say 'well sure then lets get rid of marriage.. i mean you can be civilly unioned too you don't need to marry..' Its like ground zero, marriage is an important part of our society... its meant to be available to all society.. not just those who are heterosexual. Marriage isn't a religious event anymore, its not held to the church and its not a corner stone in our community life. We've moved on into the 21st century how about some of our religions reflect that and let our government reflect what society already acknowledges and understands. Marriage is an assumption of love, the binding link is the 2 people involved, because without them there is no marriage and hence no need for it. Hell marriage is an assumption of society, you grow up expecting to one day get married, and in that you assume that you're gonna love this person so much and live together happily ever after... the love is there, its required to be there or marriage isn't marriage...

Basically, the problem is arising, I think, because I'm looking at the law from an objective view, and you're looking at the law from a subjective view (that is, you are adopting the viewpoint of a homosexual). While I acknowledge the merit of a subjective viewpoint, I think that law should be viewed from an objective viewpoint, such that it is free of bias.

People can ONLY EVER be objective if it doesn't affect them. The moment someone becomes involved they are subjective and their view is shaped by a) how involved they are b) their ideas c)social pressure (peer pressure etc)

If you are as objective as you claim, then you wouldn't be arguing this debate. Objective people don't argue, because the moment they start to argue they become subjective and their 'objective' viewpoint becomes tainted. The law, this law in particular isn't free from bias (it has a bias towards heterosexuals...), the law isnt free from emotion and its not free from subjectivity. Judges have to be free from subjectivity because they have to read the law and interpret it based on the merits of the case involved (muchly difficult of course), but you are no judge and you are not objective.

Also you assume that everyone who has/is arguing in this thread is arguing from the view point of a homosexual, has it occured that maybe some of the participants are homosexuals and thus have a much greater stake in this than you assumed previously?

 

[400miles]

Why that's odd 400miles, I thought you said you were tired of my constant ability to miss the point?

Hence the reason I said I wished to finish with the argument that was going nowhere... I'm glad you picked up on it too though.

 

[Rorix]

P). The law states that a man and a woman can marry each other, that is two people in a heterosexual relationship can marry each other, but two people in a same-sex relationship cannot marry each other. - True
Q). The law appears to be biased towards heterosexual relationships. - From a subjective viewpoint, because this is controversial, true.

Heterosexual marraiges, you mean. It is important not to confuse marriage with a relationship. Even if the emotional connection between 'eternal' love and marriage is acknowledged, a civil union with the same rights as marriage would not be discouraging homosexual relationships. Do you find this solution acceptable?

Is the law not to protect the "sanctity" of marriage though? Which makes me ask, according to the lawmakers, what do they mean by "sanctity" of marriage?

That's one argument. Sanctity, I believe, in this case refers to the tradition of marriage, the adherance to its initial state where appropriate, if you will.

'even if' there is no 'even if', its a fact.. gays are being deprived the right to marriage

(copy and pastes earlier sections of thread)

Is there a reason, just 1 solid reason that applies to all people regardless of race, religion or other defining attribute why they shouldn't have the right to marry?

Are you asking is there is a reason why gays should not have the right to marriage? I'll go find what I said earlier to MS...

Well, there are several weak rational (and perhaps moral depending on what moral concept) such as religion, devaluing marriage, tradition, general arguements against homosexuality (and thus the embrace of it) (such as these here: http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/st.../homosexuality/), as well as government policies reflecting the views of the citizens in a democracy (of course, might doesn't make right) and so on, mostly listed in the thread so far. (By weak I mean not logically conclusive)

However, I contend that the reasons for granting the right to 'gay marriages' are just as logically inconclusive.

Regarding suffage, I'll content that's a different thing all togeather. Voting is not marriage, voting does not come from a religious (or societal if you wish to deny religion) background, the principle of representive governments (which is what voting is basically for) is in favour of everyone having the vote, and probably some other reasons I can't think of at 1AM. Regardless, just because voting restrictions were lifed doesn't mean that the same thing should necessarily be done in this case.

Yes a marriage that is for wealth/status isn't a "real" marriage.

In your opinion. Many people of the time would probably disagree (I'm judging this from English texts so I could very well be wrong)

It doesn't imply that all marriage is loveless, and all love is marriageless.

Not at all, but it shows that marriage and love are seperate ideas. Marriage isn't the 'ultimate form of love', it's basically just a formal recognition of a relationship between a man and a woman. A civil union would be a formal recogition of a relationship between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman and until you can explain why marriage trumps a civil union (assuming they both had the same benefits), I don't see the difference.

Look at some forms for.. anything really and i don't see boxes for 'civil partners' or 'defacto relationships'.

You know, that could just be because we don't have civil unions! Seems pretty pointless to include a box that can never be checked, if you ask me!

It won't be held to the regard marriage is

In your opinion.

'well sure then lets get rid of marriage.. i mean you can be civilly unioned too you don't need to marry..'

Well, if we were starting from scratch without any sort of religious influence, this might be an option. But as you note, marriage is an important part of society, especially for the religious. Furthermore, just because something can replace something else, doesn't mean we should just do away with the 'old' thing. I mean, we've got Macintosh computers, we've got PCs, and they functionally do the same thing (on a basic level at least) - should we just do away with one?
I'd imagine some athiests would be drawn to the idea of having an acknowledgement of their relationship which isn't linked to a 'non-existant' God, but this is just speculation.

Marriage isn't a religious event anymore, its not held to the church and its not a corner stone in our community life.

OK, so your argument is that marriage has moved so far away from its traditional basis that moving it further won't hurt? But this requires a whole redefinition of the term marriage!

We've moved on into the 21st century how about some of our religions reflect that and let our government reflect what society already acknowledges and understands.

Hang on a minute -
you're telling religious believers that they must change their beliefs? Seems a bit hypocritical when you're preaching tolerance. Well, you're not preaching tolerance, but you object to the idea of people being intolerant toward gay marriage.

BTW: Society doesn't already acknowledge and understand that gays should have the right to 'marriage' (since the definition of marriage excludes same sex). If it did, there would be no debate, the politicians would reflect society's beliefs or they'd be voted out - there would be no problem. But society doesn't. Some aspects of society maybe, but if you're telling the others that they're flat out stupid, immoral or something of the like to oppose the idea then again, you're not being very tolerant. While the idea of homosexuality is reasonably tolerated, don't confuse the issues.

Marriage is an assumption of love

Really? Because, I seem to remember, marriage being defined as something along the lines of the union between a man and a woman. Don't see anything about assuming love there!

People can ONLY EVER be objective if it doesn't affect them

Perhaps so, but shouldn't we aim to be objective? Being objective is the only way we can make a fair decision, the right decision, as we will be removed from our biases. Seems like a good thing to aspire to.


Now we are getting illogical again, in the coming paragraph.

If you are as objective as you claim, then you wouldn't be arguing this debate. Objective people don't argue, because the moment they start to argue they become subjective and their 'objective' viewpoint becomes tainted.

That doesn't make any sense. An objective viewpoint, to borrow a philosophical idea, is one where a 'veil of ignorance' is placed over you, such that you ignore the factors which make you you, and look upon the issue removed from the biases which you inherantly possess.

The law, this law in particular isn't free from bias (it has a bias towards heterosexuals...)

The only way the law is biased, off the top of my head, is against repeat offenders. Influences from powerful people can make the law biased, but the law itself is free from most biases. It is not biased against homosexuals. The law doesn't say "only heterosexual people can get married". I've gone over this with MS, so I'd basically say the same thing as I said on page35 (I think), so just respond to that.

but you are no judge and you are not objective.

This is the sort of stupid thing I was talking about when I said I didn't want to respond to anyone without a logical argument. So, because I'm not a judge, I am incapable of looking at the law from anything resembling an objective basis. But were I to become a judge, I would inherit some magical quality that then allows me to be objective?

Seems ridiculous, but you seem to be saying I'm not objective because I'm not a judge. If not, on what grounds are you saying I'm not being objective? Is that a subjective judgement?

Also you assume that everyone who has/is arguing in this thread is arguing from the view point of a homosexual, has it occured that maybe some of the participants are homosexuals and thus have a much greater stake in this than you assumed previously?

So, a homosexual can't be arguing from the viewpoint of a homosexual? I would think they'd be rather good at it!

Does it matter if they are homosexuals? Are you perhaps inferring that homosexuals are more or less capable of reason? Because I don't see how big a stake you have in the debate has anything to do with whether you are right or not. In fact, I'd think that people with bigger stakes would be less capable of being objective! You also seem to be under the impression that allowing gays to marry will only affect gays, which is probably causing a lot of the disagreement. Gay marriage would affect everyone, concepts are interrelated.

Try as I might, I just can't see what on earth participants of the debate being gay has to do with anything! I'm not viewing anyone's opinion in a different light based on their sexuality, and I hope you aren't too!

 

[poloktim]

Heterosexual marraiges, you mean. It is important not to confuse marriage with a relationship. Even if the emotional connection between 'eternal' love and marriage is acknowledged, a civil union with the same rights as marriage would not be discouraging homosexual relationships. Do you find this solution acceptable?

You're right, I did mean marriages. My bad.
From an objective viewpoint, a civil union would be an ideal solution. From a subjective viewpoint, however, it would seem as if the government were trying to segregate everyone. Consider this (subjective, as it's controversial, and only a logical proof of my previous statement):

P). Same-sex couples are legally united by using civil unions, and different-sex couples are legally united by either civil unions or marriage. - True.
Q). The government, from a subjective point of view, is biased towards different-sex couples being united, as different-sex couples are given two choices to be legally united, marriage and civil union.

Using Modus Ponens, P is true, as it's given, P==>Q is true from a subjective viewpoint, so by the law of Modus Ponens, Q must also be true.

If you're suggesting that civil unions be exclusively for same-sex couples, then that would be a larger segregation than bringing in civil unions for both parties, but not allowing same-sex couples to marry each other. Using the past as an example, we can see that most forms of segregation (the type when free citizens/civilians are seperated from each other), aren't a desireable outcome.

That's one argument. Sanctity, I believe, in this case refers to the tradition of marriage, the adherance to its initial state where appropriate, if you will.

But marriage's tradition is to last forever, one can argue (quite poorly, so please don't take this as an argument of mine, just an example) that divorce ruined the sanctity of marriage. Many people are being divorced nowadays, which threatens the enternity that marriage offers.

Perhaps so, but shouldn't we aim to be objective? Being objective is the only way we can make a fair decision, the right decision, as we will be removed from our biases. Seems like a good thing to aspire to.

I've repeated it like a parrot, and I'm sure you've read and disagreed with it, but I'll say it one last time (as it is exclusive here, and not an add on to an argument).
When it comes to the controversial issues, should we not look for a subjective viewpoint? If not, then do you think that it is right (if you allow me to use that word, 'right'), that the government allows conscience votes? Shouldn't our members of parliament be making their decision based on what the electorate (or party as in most cases) wants, not what their conscience tells them?

 

[Rorix]

From an objective viewpoint, a civil union would be an ideal solution. From a subjective viewpoint, however, it would seem as if the government were trying to segregate everyone.

Well, they're already segregated into homosexual and heterosexual relationships (assuming sexual preferences -> marrital [is that a word?] preference), the government would just be acknowleding this distinction. (this is if civil union is only for same sex unions, which I doubt it would be but anyway) So yes, there would be segregation, but not all segregation is wrong e.g. affirmative action (or appropriate help the disadvantaged program you agree with).

P). Same-sex couples are legally united by using civil unions, and different-sex couples are legally united by either civil unions or marriage. - True.
Q). The government, from a subjective point of view, is biased towards different-sex couples being united, as different-sex couples are given two choices to be legally united, marriage and civil union.

I disagree that there is a bias here, because the civil union is the same in every way, except for name and religious background (which the government can't really influence anyway). So, while there is a choice, it's just the same thing with a different name.

But marriage's tradition is to last forever, one can argue (quite poorly, so please don't take this as an argument of mine, just an example) that divorce ruined the sanctity of marriage. Many people are being divorced nowadays, which threatens the enternity that marriage offers.

True. But just because 'the chruch's vision' has already been compromised by divorce doesn't mean it should be further compromised by redefining it to include same sex marriages.

I've repeated it like a parrot, and I'm sure you've read and disagreed with it, but I'll say it one last time (as it is exclusive here, and not an add on to an argument). When it comes to the controversial issues, should we not look for a subjective viewpoint?

To me it depends on the scale of the controversial issue. For say gay marriages, if gay marriage is denied, then the effect on the gay community isn't that drastic, so it's better to look at it from an objective point of view. However, for something like 'all blacks should be enslaved to work fields for white masters', this has a significant effect on black people, and thus we should acknowledge the extensive suffering and look from a subjective point of view. So I guess the answer is from an objective standpoint provided the affected parties aren't denied the most important rights (of which I wouldn't consider marriage, voting, uhh basically involves the things relevant to all people of all ages)

If not, then do you think that it is right (if you allow me to use that word, 'right'), that the government allows conscience votes? Shouldn't our members of parliament be making their decision based on what the electorate (or party as in most cases) wants, not what their conscience tells them?

Well, you can look at it two extremes:
1. The electorate has voted for a candadate that they believe will best reflect their views i.e. the electorate has voted for a person, thus that person should offer their vote (i.e. conscience vote)
2. The electorate has voted for a person to reflect their views, in a complete democratic system (the choice of politician isn't really important here, as they will vote with the electorate every time)

I'd say taking into account efficiency, the correct balance would be toward #1, but with the representative following the electorate's views when a large majority of the electorate opposes his view (like 65, 75% ish)

 

[poloktim]

Well, they're already segregated into homosexual and heterosexual relationships (assuming sexual preferences -> marrital [is that a word?] preference), the government would just be acknowleding this distinction. (this is if civil union is only for same sex unions, which I doubt it would be but anyway) So yes, there would be segregation, but not all segregation is wrong e.g. affirmative action (or appropriate help the disadvantaged program you agree with).

But that segregation can't be helped (we'll not go into the details of what makes a person homosexual here). The segregation of marriage and civil union however, can be. You're right however, not all segregation is wrong, but I feel (as an opinion, not an argument) that this segregation is wrong.

I disagree that there is a bias here, because the civil union is the same in every way, except for name and religious background (which the government can't really influence anyway). So, while there is a choice, it's just the same thing with a different name.

The traditional-ness of marriage (if there is such as word), however conditions us to believe from a young age that there is nothing better. Although creating something that's perfectly equal in legality to marriage is possible, and that might be perfect for some people (as eviltama was saying people may be homophobic, the hatred does swing both ways, there are homosexuals who despise things that are heterosexual), others still might strive to obtain this perfection in relationships that we've all grown up to belive is the be all and end all of them, marriage. This is very subjective however, and could only form grounds for a compassionate argument.

True. But just because 'the chruch's vision' has already been compromised by divorce doesn't mean it should be further compromised by redefining it to include same sex marriages.

Marriage didn't just start off as a religious ceremony. In many medieval feudal lands (such as Asia), marriage was used as a way to win alliances, and gain hold of money (the latter still popular in today's society). Australia did start off as a Brittish, and therefore Christian country, but now we are multicultural, other countries' definitions of marriage should have just as much merit as Anglo-Christian.

To me it depends on the scale of the controversial issue. For say gay marriages, if gay marriage is denied, then the effect on the gay community isn't that drastic, so it's better to look at it from an objective point of view. However, for something like 'all blacks should be enslaved to work fields for white masters', this has a significant effect on black people, and thus we should acknowledge the extensive suffering and look from a subjective point of view. So I guess the answer is from an objective standpoint provided the affected parties aren't denied the most important rights (of which I wouldn't consider marriage, voting, uhh basically involves the things relevant to all people of all ages)

I can see, and understand where you're coming from.
However, for a moment, be subjective towards the homosexual community. Would the denial of marriage be drastic to you? Being able to see friends and relatives be married, but not being able to yourself? This is not a valid argument, it's not logical (since logic only consists of statements, and questions are not statements), but still worth a passing thought.

It's not as drastic as some other controversies, but still it is controversial.

Well, you can look at it two extremes:
1. The electorate has voted for a candadate that they believe will best reflect their views i.e. the electorate has voted for a person, thus that person should offer their vote (i.e. conscience vote)
2. The electorate has voted for a person to reflect their views, in a complete democratic system (the choice of politician isn't really important here, as they will vote with the electorate every time)

I'd say taking into account efficiency, the correct balance would be toward #1, but with the representative following the electorate's views when a large majority of the electorate opposes his view (like 65, 75% ish)

When an election is held, depending on the electorate, #1 is most often then not the way MPs are voted. However, #2 shouldn't be discarded. When controversy errupts everyone forms different opinions. Where conscience votes get tricky. MPs will vote based on their upbringing and beliefs, which are different to that of the people in their electorate (face it, we're all unique). So the electorate may want an option that the conscience will tell the MP is wrong.


Anyway, if any of this looks like BS to you, it's because I'm dying for some food, and I think my pies are cooked.

 

[eviltama]

(copy and pastes earlier sections of thread)

Heterosexual couples can marry. Homosexual couples cannot marry. <--- FACT.
I'm not talking about everyone has the right to marry as a man and a woman etc etc, i'm talking about couples here as they stand.

Are you asking is there is a reason why gays should not have the right to marriage? I'll go find what I said earlier to MS...

I'm asking for 1 solid undeniable reason why homosexuals should not have the right to marriage. I'm not asking for your opinion on some of the reasons given in the thread already we've already been through those and there is no concrete reason amoungst those given. Each 'reason' can be pulled apart and pushed around and debated till we're blue in the face (or hands since its so cold lately).

You say that the reasons for granting homosexual marriage are logically inconclusive yet, i fail to see how this is so. Then perhaps my logic is different to yours, it seems logical to me that a homosexual couple deserves the same rights as a heterosexual couple, in their entirety, because sexuality can not be a legal source of discrimination. Religion isn't a legal source of discrimination either (unless you count it being under their own roof,ie in a church). That all seems logical to me.

Regarding suffage, I'll content that's a different thing all togeather. Voting is not marriage, voting does not come from a religious (or societal if you wish to deny religion) background, the principle of representive governments (which is what voting is basically for) is in favour of everyone having the vote, and probably some other reasons I can't think of at 1AM. Regardless, just because voting restrictions were lifed doesn't mean that the same thing should necessarily be done in this case.

Voting restrictions were lifted because it wasn't allowing the government to reflect the entirety of its people... which is its purpose. The purpose of marriage is the join in union 2 people in love (well its assumed ur in love) to the exclusion of others for life. Some may say marriages purpose is procreation, others think its purpose is to rort the government... I spose to each his own interpretation, but to all it carries the cultural and social symbols of love, unity, forever after and family. None of those symbols are gender based, nor are they reliant upon a dominant sexuality. Marriage itself as a cultural symbol is slightly sexuality based due to the dominant heterosexual assumption in society, but over time it has lost its basis in religion and in time it has and will gradually become less and less reliant upon a sexuality viewpoint. To me(and im sure to others) marriage has no sexuality and no religious standpoint, and i think if marriage is to survive and keep its 'sanctity' and 'tradition' and all those things (basically to stay on its pedestal), its going to have to entirely move away from religion and sexuality. (I'm not saying religious marriages are bad or are going to fade away, just that the assumed Christian/Catholic tones are going to have to be dropped to full accomodate other religions and those who are not religious.)

In your opinion. Many people of the time would probably disagree (I'm judging this from English texts so I could very well be wrong)

From the books i've read, even back there a marriage for wealth and status, while viewed from a good standpoint was only being used to profit from. (just like they are now) They were more accepted then, because people had to build a life from scratch or they were born to it. And those who were born to it always wanted more and wanted to go higher, and those who weren't born into it wanted to marry into it. It wasn't really about love then, it was more about status and wealth and making yourself a name... if you happened to love the person you married well Score, but if you didnt it served you best to just be discrete.
There are alot of soppy books around which at the time they were written are now the equivalent of our mills and boons (Emma being one such book).

Not at all, but it shows that marriage and love are seperate ideas. Marriage isn't the 'ultimate form of love', it's basically just a formal recognition of a relationship between a man and a woman. A civil union would be a formal recogition of a relationship between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman and until you can explain why marriage trumps a civil union (assuming they both had the same benefits), I don't see the difference.

I think that marriage IS the 'ultimate form of love', the ultimate show of commitment to your partner. It is a piece of paper in truth, but the event isn't the signing of the papers. Marriage is as much a feeling, as it is a document. It is alot of things, its the preparation, its the well wishes from your friends and family, its the excitement, its the nerves, its the ultimate awesome experience that embodies a marrital event that makes a marriage more than jsut a piece of paper. If we take it from the standpoint of a civil union = marriage each getting the exact same rights and such, then how marriage trumps the civil union is all in the meaning. Marriage has alot of history and as above alot of feeling. It doesn't feel like a piece of paper, whereas a civil union has no background and no history.. its a cold lifeless piece of paper which to most people would mean nothing. You go to your parents 'X and I are getting married!' compared to 'X and I are being civilly unioned!', the difference is yes only really in the words, but in marriage vs civil union, marriage trumps a civil union and shits on it by far. This is where the debate about civil unions being made for 2nd class citizens comes to the fore. Becuase thats how it would feel to a homosexual. They would feel rorted to think that they weren't good enough to be married, that they were being given a 'civil union' and everyone who was married was seen as better than them. Even if both were on an equal standing in front of the law, to society (if this was introduced) civil unions would be marriages poorer unknown cousin... and not the equivalent. And what is gained by segregation? You're pushing the homosexual community further and further away instead of bringing them closer to society. It would be like going back a decade (give or take) when homosexual acts were illegal and homosexuals had no choice but to be in the closet. I don't think our society is that backward, hell i know its not. I don't say homosexual marriage is knocking on our door right now, but in time it will come. Why make it harder to accept and why make it harder to achieve? (by banning it, which was what the thread was originally about)

You know, that could just be because we don't have civil unions! Seems pretty pointless to include a box that can never be checked, if you ask me!

Australia’s First Civil Unions
http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/australia/ausnews003.htm

Also it still begs the question... where are the boxes for defacto couples?

In your opinion.

Ask around. Talk to people from overseas who have been civilly unioned and those who are married.. then come back and say its held to the same regard as marriage.

Well, if we were starting from scratch without any sort of religious influence, this might be an option. But as you note, marriage is an important part of society, especially for the religious. Furthermore, just because something can replace something else, doesn't mean we should just do away with the 'old' thing. I mean, we've got Macintosh computers, we've got PCs, and they functionally do the same thing (on a basic level at least) - should we just do away with one?
I'd imagine some athiests would be drawn to the idea of having an acknowledgement of their relationship which isn't linked to a 'non-existant' God, but this is just speculation.

Marriage is an important part of society for all people.. not just heterosexuals and not just for the religious. If something is broken then fix it, our marriage laws are broken because they don't allow all people to marry their prefered partner... so it should be fixed. As for your pc example i'd be more than happy to see Mac's gotten rid of.But then again i don't like Macs. Marriage doesn't need to be linked with god, thats y it can be performed by a JoP or marriage celebrant and not only a priest or church minister. It removes the religious element entirely.

OK, so your argument is that marriage has moved so far away from its traditional basis that moving it further won't hurt? But this requires a whole redefinition of the term marriage!

Marriage has already moved so far away from its tradition basis and it will continue to move whether or not it hurts and whether or not people like it. And as for a redefinition fo marriage, i don't need my understanding redefined and the Candians have already released new editions of dictionaries to cope with the redefinition of marriage and new words and such. Words change meaning all the time, and over time especially.. marriage isn't any different.

Hang on a minute -
you're telling religious believers that they must change their beliefs? Seems a bit hypocritical when you're preaching tolerance. Well, you're not preaching tolerance, but you object to the idea of people being intolerant toward gay marriage.

What i said was 'how about some of our religions reflect' society as it is today, i'm not telling them to change their beliefs just accept or show tolerance (atleast) towards the fact that society is changing and has changed significantly since the time when their religions may have been founded. It was more a personal reflection than an order, but to me it a religion would be worthless unless it progressed with the times. What good is a religion stuck in the backwaters of time when we live right here and now? I also wasn't speaking only about homosexuals or homosexual marriage. Personally i object to ignorance and intolerance on any level, be it towards men, women, children, based on sexuality, gender, religion, back ground etc etc

BTW: Society doesn't already acknowledge and understand that gays should have the right to 'marriage' (since the definition of marriage excludes same sex). If it did, there would be no debate, the politicians would reflect society's beliefs or they'd be voted out - there would be no problem. But society doesn't. Some aspects of society maybe, but if you're telling the others that they're flat out stupid, immoral or something of the like to oppose the idea then again, you're not being very tolerant. While the idea of homosexuality is reasonably tolerated, don't confuse the issues.

Society does acknowledge homosexuals (and homosexuality is not seen as an 'issue' any more by most people), and it does acknowledge that homosexuals deserve to be allowed to be married. That is why this debate is so important. Our politicans are not reflecting societies beliefs, all of society.. hell not even 3/4 of society believe in what the government are planning to do with the marriage act. But what can we do about it? Chances are it'll go through anyway because what choice is there? Both major parties support it, and eventually our votes regardless of who we vote for (amoungst the minor parties) go in support of the major parties. I don't support liberal or labour, but one of them will eventually get my vote. I do think that people who don't accept gay marriage are 'flat our stupid, immoral', a fair bunch of them are homophobes and an even larger majority don't give a shit because it doesn't affect them. I don't tolerate ignorance and intolerance and thats what not allowing homosexuals to marry is. Its being ignorant towards the needs of your fellow people, and being intolerant (for whatever your reason) is stupid. Sure go be intolerant to homosexuals, prove that you're a homophobe.. go condone gay bashers, in the end you'll be the one who does something stupid and ends up suffering for it and i'll still dislike you and think you a fool. (And thats not pointed at anyone in particular.. just my views *again*) I'm not sure which should be the bigger crime.. being ignorant or being intolerant. Both hurt people around you, your friends and family, both affect society at some level because ignorance and intolerance are diseases which spread (cureable at times yes but at other times no) and both often lead to criminal behaviour. *shrugs*

Really? Because, I seem to remember, marriage being defined as something along the lines of the union between a man and a woman. Don't see anything about assuming love there!

Love is assumed to be present in a marriage otherwise why go thru the hassle? Sure there are other reasons, but the main meaning of marriage is love. Thats what the vows are for, thats why couples marry... thats why marriage is seen as the ultimate form of love and commitment. People wouldn't link marriage and love if it wasn't there.

Perhaps so, but shouldn't we aim to be objective? Being objective is the only way we can make a fair decision, the right decision, as we will be removed from our biases. Seems like a good thing to aspire to.

What is life without emotion? Objectivity is fine and dandy to aspire to if you want that, but what is life without biases, without feelings, without choice? I can be objective and say the sky is red and gold tonight, or i can paint you a picture with words to describe the beauty of the scene. I can say sure these are the facts of the event, but the facts of the event don't tell me what really happened at the event.. how people were affected by it..

That doesn't make any sense. An objective viewpoint, to borrow a philosophical idea, is one where a 'veil of ignorance' is placed over you, such that you ignore the factors which make you you, and look upon the issue removed from the biases which you inherantly possess.

What about the factors which make us human? What about the factors which tell us right from wrong? Should we all aspire to use this 'veil of ignorance' so that what may seem right to us is wrong. How much ignorance is needed to be objective? How much is too much? Too little? and who can judge who is being objective and who is being tainted by personal prejudice? Can there ever be a truly objective person? My own answer to the last question is no, there can't. Everyone has some stake in an issue, be it for their own profit, for laughs or just because.. and that taints the objective view.

The only way the law is biased, off the top of my head, is against repeat offenders. Influences from powerful people can make the law biased, but the law itself is free from most biases. It is not biased against homosexuals. The law doesn't say "only heterosexual people can get married". I've gone over this with MS, so I'd basically say the same thing as I said on page35 (I think), so just respond to that.

If the law was biased towards repeat offenders my nextdr neighbour would be in jail and not walking the streets looking for another victim. The law implies only homosexuals can get married, i mean who else wants to marry someone of the opposite sex... homosexuals don't.

Seems ridiculous, but you seem to be saying I'm not objective because I'm not a judge. If not, on what grounds are you saying I'm not being objective? Is that a subjective judgement?

It was an example. And as i said above i don't think anyone can be objective.

So, a homosexual can't be arguing from the viewpoint of a homosexual? I would think they'd be rather good at it!

The point was that you assume everyone here is heterosexual. And only once has it been asked how many were homosexual or even if any were homosexual. Whats the point of the discussion if you continue to assume that this is a 'view point' debate.

Does it matter if they are homosexuals? Are you perhaps inferring that homosexuals are more or less capable of reason? Because I don't see how big a stake you have in the debate has anything to do with whether you are right or not. In fact, I'd think that people with bigger stakes would be less capable of being objective! You also seem to be under the impression that allowing gays to marry will only affect gays, which is probably causing a lot of the disagreement. Gay marriage would affect everyone, concepts are interrelated.

Try as I might, I just can't see what on earth participants of the debate being gay has to do with anything! I'm not viewing anyone's opinion in a different light based on their sexuality, and I hope you aren't too!

I think it makes a big difference if they are homosexual, because this issue affects them directly. I don't think gay marriage would affect those already married, i don't see it affecting heterosexuals wanting to get married, i only see it affecting homosexuals.. because they are the only people who are affected by the lack in the first place. How does the issue affect heterosexuals? It doesnt. Perhaps if it was seen as more than just a political debate you might accept that it doesn't involve you, but thats all heterosexuals see this debate as... something occuring in the political forum of our society... you don't see it as affecting you directly.. just barely even indirectly... if at all. I don't see peoples opinions in a different light as based on their sexuality, but what good is a one sided arguement amoungst heterosexuals about homosexuals... sounds stupid to me. Like cats arguing about something only affecting dogs.

 

[Rorix]

Heterosexual couples can marry. Homosexual couples cannot marry. <--- FACT.
I'm not talking about everyone has the right to marry as a man and a woman etc etc, i'm talking about couples here as they stand.

This is ridiculous because the definition of marriage already excludes man-man or woman-woman marriages. It's like saying I'm being discriminated against because I can't be called a woman, ignoring the fact that I have a penis.

I'm asking for 1 solid undeniable reason why homosexuals should not have the right to marriage.

I'm asking for 1 solid undeniable reason why homosexuals should have the right to marriage. When you want to initiate a change, the onus is on you to provide reasons for that change. Otherwise there would just be change for changes sake.

Voting restrictions were lifted because it wasn't allowing the government to reflect the entirety of its people... which is its purpose.

Yup.

The purpose of marriage is the join in union 2 people in love (well its assumed ur in love) to the exclusion of others for life.

This isn't the purpose of marriage. Marriage is a formal recognition of the relationship between a man and a woman. To say marriage has any other purpose is bound to fail, because it's wrong. Sure, most people that get married are in love, but this is just happenstance, like having two clocks showing the same time.

Some may say marriages purpose is procreation, others think its purpose is to rort the government... I spose to each his own interpretation, but to all it carries the cultural and social symbols of love, unity, forever after and family. None of those symbols are gender based, nor are they reliant upon a dominant sexuality.

Actually, I'd say that the most commonly acknowledged purpose of marriage (at least traditionally) would be for a man and a woman to raise their own children. If you consider family to be one of the values, surely you acknowledge that family generally means the nuclear family structure. There are other definitions of family but this doesn't mean that they apply here - would a Mafia family be included in the symbols of marriage ^o)?

Marriage itself as a cultural symbol is slightly sexuality based due to the dominant heterosexual assumption in society,

Or by the definition of marriage.

but over time it has lost its basis in religion

In your opinion. How are you defining whether marriage is based in religion or not? I mean, are marriages conducted in a church religious? Do both partners have to be devoutly religious?

and in time it has and will gradually become less and less reliant upon a sexuality viewpoint.

Firstly, irrelevant. Secondly, marriage is viewed as man-woman union, otherwise you wouldn't have to affix (am I using this word right? ) gay to marriage.

To me(and im sure to others) marriage has no sexuality and no religious standpoint, and i think if marriage is to survive and keep its 'sanctity' and 'tradition' and all those things (basically to stay on its pedestal), its going to have to entirely move away from religion and sexuality.

Ridiculous. The religious background and gender specifications are entailed in its sanctity and tradition. How is moving away from marriage's tradition going to keep it sanct and close to its tradition?

(I'm not saying religious marriages are bad or are going to fade away, just that the assumed Christian/Catholic tones are going to have to be dropped to full accomodate other religions and those who are not religious.)

See, I'm confused here. At first you're trying to construct an argument from majority, that what the most people agree with is what we should do. (basically that people support marriage should be free of gender specification, which I deny but anyway). Now you're trying to tell me that marriage should not have religious overtones. Pray tell me, what majority of Australians, according to census data (or any other appropriate measuing tool) believe in religions which include the concept of marriage?

if you happened to love the person you married well Score, but if you didnt it served you best to just be discrete.

Exactly. If love was somehow entwined with marriage, the purposes of marriage in different social contexts would be the same. Just like if marriage was for wealth/status, it would still be for wealth/status now. One purpose of marriage has been common - that marriage is a formal recognition of a relationship between a man and a woman.

I think that marriage IS the 'ultimate form of love', the ultimate show of commitment to your partner. It is a piece of paper in truth, but the event isn't the signing of the papers. Marriage is as much a feeling, as it is a document. It is alot of things, its the preparation, its the well wishes from your friends and family, its the excitement, its the nerves, its the ultimate awesome experience that embodies a marrital event that makes a marriage more than jsut a piece of paper. If we take it from the standpoint of a civil union = marriage each getting the exact same rights and such, then how marriage trumps the civil union is all in the meaning. Marriage has alot of history and as above alot of feeling. It doesn't feel like a piece of paper, whereas a civil union has no background and no history.. its a cold lifeless piece of paper which to most people would mean nothing. You go to your parents 'X and I are getting married!' compared to 'X and I are being civilly unioned!', the difference is yes only really in the words, but in marriage vs civil union, marriage trumps a civil union and shits on it by far. This is where the debate about civil unions being made for 2nd class citizens comes to the fore. Becuase thats how it would feel to a homosexual. They would feel rorted to think that they weren't good enough to be married, that they were being given a 'civil union' and everyone who was married was seen as better than them. Even if both were on an equal standing in front of the law, to society (if this was introduced) civil unions would be marriages poorer unknown cousin... and not the equivalent.

How many times have you been married? How many times have you entered a civil union? QED.

And what is gained by segregation? You're pushing the homosexual community further and further away instead of bringing them closer to society.

Not true at all. Homosexuals would be gaining a formal recognition of their relationship, and would be entitled to all the benefits a heterosexual couple are currently entitled too. Unless homosexuals are currently entitled to MORE BENEFITS than heterosexuals, looks like a step forward to me!

It would be like going back a decade (give or take) when homosexual acts were illegal and homosexuals had no choice but to be in the closet.

No. It wouldn't. Explain how it would be. They're not going to be forced to be in the closet, the civil union is being introduced just to acknowledge their relationships on an equal footing to man-woman relationships!

I don't say homosexual marriage is knocking on our door right now, but in time it will come.

Opinion.

Australia’s First Civil Unions
http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/australia/ausnews003.htm

Hmm, didn't know about that. Do Tasmanian forms have a box for civilly unioned couples on the appropriate medical, pension, care-giver and parental entitlements forms?

Anywhere where the status of your relationship matters, there is an appropriate way of giving that information. There must be, or else the benefits you have been made entitled to wouldn't exist.

Marriage is an important part of society for all people

As I understand it, marriage is the formal recognition of the union between a man and a woman. If by important part of society for all people you mean something like most children are born into a marriage, or something like that, then I agree.

As for your pc example i'd be more than happy to see Mac's gotten rid of.But then again i don't like Macs.

What, are you a Macophobe?.

Marriage has already moved so far away from its tradition basis and it will continue to move whether or not it hurts and whether or not people like it.

Naive, ridiculous, intolerant and several other negative adjectives that don't immediately come to mind.

And as for a redefinition fo marriage, i don't need my understanding redefined

I'm afraid your understanding is in conflict with the actual appropriate definition. What Canadians have done is irrelevant.

What i said was 'how about some of our religions reflect' society as it is today, i'm not telling them to change their beliefs just accept or show tolerance (atleast) towards the fact that society is changing and has changed significantly since the time when their religions may have been founded.

Yes you are. You're asking them to reflect modern day society, as you see it. Religion reflects the appropriate religious texts, worships appropriate diety(s) and so on. It has nothing to do with reflecting society.

Society does acknowledge homosexuals (and homosexuality is not seen as an 'issue' any more by most people)

Proof? I assume you mean something else than 'issue', because basically everything that you can comment on is an issue.

Our politicans are not reflecting societies beliefs, all of society.. hell not even 3/4 of society believe in what the government are planning to do with the marriage act.

I think you'll find that the definition of marriage has excluded homosexuals for quite a while now.

What is life without emotion? Objectivity is fine and dandy to aspire to if you want that, but what is life without biases, without feelings, without choice? I can be objective and say the sky is red and gold tonight, or i can paint you a picture with words to describe the beauty of the scene. I can say sure these are the facts of the event, but the facts of the event don't tell me what really happened at the event.. how people were affected by it..

Then equally, you should respect a radically conservative religious man who thinks gays are a scourge on the Earth, and believes that they all should be shot. I don't think you do.

What about the factors which make us human? What about the factors which tell us right from wrong? Should we all aspire to use this 'veil of ignorance' so that what may seem right to us is wrong. How much ignorance is needed to be objective? How much is too much? Too little? and who can judge who is being objective and who is being tainted by personal prejudice? Can there ever be a truly objective person? My own answer to the last question is no, there can't. Everyone has some stake in an issue, be it for their own profit, for laughs or just because.. and that taints the objective view.

You missed the point. The point is we should aspire to be objective.

If the law was biased towards repeat offenders my nextdr neighbour would be in jail and not walking the streets looking for another victim.

I don't know whats going on next door, but the law is biased against repeat offenders.

The point was that you assume everyone here is heterosexual. And only once has it been asked how many were homosexual or even if any were homosexual. Whats the point of the discussion if you continue to assume that this is a 'view point' debate.

Where did I assume this? Please quote it. A heterosexual can argues from a heterosexual viewpoint. A homosexual can argue from a homosexual viewpoint. A heterosexual can argues from a homosexual viewpoint. Just because I said that MS was looking from the viewpoint of a homosexual doesn't mean he/she is heterosexual. I was just commenting on how s/he was approaching the issue.

I think it makes a big difference if they are homosexual, because this issue affects them directly.I don't think gay marriage would affect those already married, i don't see it affecting heterosexuals wanting to get married, i only see it affecting homosexuals.. because they are the only people who are affected by the lack in the first place. How does the issue affect heterosexuals?

Redefining marriage doesn't affect heterosexuals?

Perhaps if it was seen as more than just a political debate you might accept that it doesn't involve you, but thats all heterosexuals see this debate as... something occuring in the political forum of our society... you don't see it as affecting you directly.. just barely even indirectly... if at all. I don't see peoples opinions in a different light as based on their sexuality, but what good is a one sided arguement amoungst heterosexuals about homosexuals... sounds stupid to me. Like cats arguing about something only affecting dogs.

You seem to be gay. You seem to be personally offended that I don't think you are deprived the right to marriage. Whether you are gay or not is irrelevant to me, your opinion holds no more or less weight based on your sexual preference.

 

[Generator]

Sorry to interrupt the tennis match (knowing my luck I will be accused of supporting slavery once again)...

I would not use the generalisations of 'society at large' and 'society is moving forward' so freely. Silence does not represent acceptance, or even tolerance.

 

[eviltama]

This is ridiculous because the definition of marriage already excludes man-man or woman-woman marriages.

You proved my original point. There was no 'even if', its fact that (in your own words) 'the definition of marriage already excludes man-man or woman-woman marriage'

I'm asking for 1 solid undeniable reason why homosexuals should have the right to marriage. When you want to initiate a change, the onus is on you to provide reasons for that change. Otherwise there would just be change for changes sake.

Homosexuals are being denied the same right to marriage in australia as heterosexuals. You just proved it yourself above, the definition doesn't give equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The discrimination laws were brought in for this reason, to allow homosexuals and heterosexuals to stand on equal footing.

This isn't the purpose of marriage. Marriage is a formal recognition of the relationship between a man and a woman. To say marriage has any other purpose is bound to fail, because it's wrong. Sure, most people that get married are in love, but this is just happenstance, like having two clocks showing the same time.

If that is all marriage is then why not abolish it? Why not just have civil unions... if the purpose of marriage is only the formal recognition of a relationship then why bother with the ceremony, the tradition, the cost, the added extras? What are they then if they aren't 'marriage'... just the side serves? Why have this debate if allowing homosexuals to marry is just a formal recognition of their relationship, is there something wrong with giving them that? Or is marriage to be forever the domain of the elite heterosexuals...

Actually, I'd say that the most commonly acknowledged purpose of marriage (at least traditionally) would be for a man and a woman to raise their own children. If you consider family to be one of the values, surely you acknowledge that family generally means the nuclear family structure. There are other definitions of family but this doesn't mean that they apply here - would a Mafia family be included in the symbols of marriage ^o)?

I acknowledge that family is many things, it is not just a nuclear family group. But it is in most cases 2 parents and children (biological, fostered or adopted). A family with children is not just a heterosexual couple, but can also be a homosexual couple... in cases of spousal death it can be a single parent. I see no problem with the familial aspect of 'marriage' and this issue.

Or by the definition of marriage.

Where do you think the definition of marriage came from? It didn't just appear out of thin air...

In your opinion. How are you defining whether marriage is based in religion or not? I mean, are marriages conducted in a church religious? Do both partners have to be devoutly religious?

If a marriage is conducted in a church, then its a religious ceremony hence a religious marriage. If its done by a priest the same applies. Both partners don't have to be devoutly religious no, but i'd assume since their marriage is held with either a priest or in a church there would be a religious base to it and some religious significance to them.

And that its lost its basis in religion is as much observation as anything. More people are getting married away from the church and tradition. More are marrying on beaches, in parks even in their own gardens and are not using priests, but celebrants and JoP's. I havent been to a religious wedding (held in a church with a priest) for nearly 15 years. But yet i've been to half a dozen non-religious weddings in that time period.

Firstly, irrelevant. Secondly, marriage is viewed as man-woman union, otherwise you wouldn't have to affix (am I using this word right? ) gay to marriage.

No not irrelevant, if people are going to accept homosexual marriages then the sexuality viewpoint is going to have to become less of an issue. Marriage is defined as a man-woman union, but in time i'd like to see it become something along the lines of a union between two people. That way we wouldn't be using terms such as homosexual marriage or gay marriage or heterosexual marriage... it would just be 'marriage'.

The 'gay' is being affixed to marriage to signify homosexual, i prefer to use the word homosexual generally because gay is usually seen as 'gay men' not an all encompasing term to describe both homosexual men and women. Its a personal preference i guess, some people use gay as an all encompasing word, its not seen as being as derogatory as it used to be.

Ridiculous. The religious background and gender specifications are entailed in its sanctity and tradition. How is moving away from marriage's tradition going to keep it sanct and close to its tradition?

So my opinions, and the opinion of others on what we think marriage is (has basis in) is ridiculous? The sanctity of marriage lies within the 'till death do we part' i believe, and the vow of undying faith and to the exclusion of all others. All of which can be and is reflected in a non-traditional and non-religious marriage. Gender specifications are entailed in its definition yes, and in a wholly traditional view i guess the seperation would be difficult for some to see. But as far as i'm concerned marriage is genderless, thats how i've always seen it. Traditions change over time, and if marriage does want to survive it will have to move away from being defined as such to keep that meaning. Otherwise when marriage is redefined to allow homosexuals to marry the 'tradition' won't bend.. it'll break. People won't see it anymore as something of importance.. just old, stale, and one of those 'back in the golden days' things.

Pray tell me, what majority of Australians, according to census data (or any other appropriate measuing tool) believe in religions which include the concept of marriage?

So you want to tell all those people out there who do believe in marriage yet follow religions such as Judaism, Hinduism, Islamic based religions,Buddism, some protetstant groups, unitarianism etc that their definitions of marriage (whatever they may be) are less worthy compared to the ~70% population of Christian/Catholics? If marriage is going to be religious, then it should be based on your religion... not the religion of the majority of the population.. otherwise whats the point of a religious marriage (for them)? (or any marriage if you include religion in its definition/basis)

That was my point, we are a multi-cultural society, with many different religions and religious groups. All of which (through their own religious base) support a different view of marriage... you can't reflect all their views... but you can't just tell them no that their religion means less than whatever the majority may profess to believe.

Exactly. If love was somehow entwined with marriage, the purposes of marriage in different social contexts would be the same. Just like if marriage was for wealth/status, it would still be for wealth/status now. One purpose of marriage has been common - that marriage is a formal recognition of a relationship between a man and a woman.

The purpose of marriage in different social contexts can't be the same if the purpose has changed. Back then marriage was for wealth and status... very few people (if any at all) marry with wealth and status their sole objective. Marriage then and now has served as a recognition of a relationship between a man and a woman, but then what is so sanct and traditional about a piece of paper? Which going by your instance of marriage as a formal recognition of a relationship, is what you are denying homosexuals. But yet you seem to think that a civil union is the same recognition only between a man-man or woman-woman, why not save the paper work and let it be known as a marriage? Whats is your problem with that? (Keep in mind you are only talking about a 'formal recognition for a relationship')

How many times have you been married? How many times have you entered a civil union? QED.

Note the part at the top of that part of my post where is said 'i think', it goes to imply that what followed below is my opinion. Also how many times have you been married or entered a non-existant civil union? Have you talked to anyone who is civilly unioned or married? (homosexual as well as heterosexual) Where does your opinion find its basis?

Not true at all. Homosexuals would be gaining a formal recognition of their relationship, and would be entitled to all the benefits a heterosexual couple are currently entitled too. Explain how it would be. They're not going to be forced to be in the closet, the civil union is being introduced just to acknowledge their relationships on an equal footing to man-woman relationships!

We'd be gaining a step forward... to where? I don't think it'd be marriage because the moment civil unions are granted as formal recognitions of homosexual relationships the heterosexual community will scream blue murder if we continue our campaign to full recognition under the definition of marriage. Its not equal recognition its just giving a dog a bone to shut it up. (A big bone if civil unions truely grant equal rights in comparison to married coupled, and a not so big bone if it follows the trend in the UK.)

If by important part of society for all people you mean something like most children are born into a marriage, or something like that, then I agree.

and if i dont think along those lines then you don't agree... right-o. Marriage is supposed to embody unity as a couple... children are semi-important (not all people can have children or want them), but unity is the most important part. That is why it is an important part of society. (one of the many reasons, but the one i think most important)

Naive, ridiculous, intolerant and several other negative adjectives that don't immediately come to mind.

A very similar sentance comes to mind when i thing of the definition of marriage and people against homosexual marriage...

I'm afraid your understanding is in conflict with the actual appropriate definition. What Canadians have done is irrelevant.

My understanding is in conflict yes.. and so is many others. If not then we wouldnt be discussing this. Also not everyone believes it is an 'appropriate definition', and for sure it wasn't the definition i was taught in primary school i only had instance to encounter it in legal studies. As to the canadians you were talking about the changing of definitions... i supplied an example of what has occured.

You're asking them to reflect modern day society, as you see it. Religion reflects the appropriate religious texts, worships appropriate diety(s) and so on. It has nothing to do with reflecting society.

Right, as i see it religion (as i understand religion as a concept(such as taught in Religion and Culture)) should reflect not only its texts/dieties/etc but also the social and cultural context of the time. A religion that doesn't is usually known as a fundamentalist religion.

I assume you mean something else than 'issue', because basically everything that you can comment on is an issue.

Issues are problems. Something that you can comment on is not always an issue. The war in iraq is an issue, whereas the the colour of the sky is not an issue... nor is how x's grand kids are.

I think you'll find that the definition of marriage has excluded homosexuals for quite a while now.

I think then perhaps its time to reopen the case book and see if it is time to change the definition. Its not the first definition to require amendment, and it will not be the last.

Then equally, you should respect a radically conservative religious man who thinks gays are a scourge on the Earth, and believes that they all should be shot. I don't think you do.

I don't respect anyone who wants anyone shot. I also don't respect anyone who thinks that someone/thing are a 'scourge' on the earth, without having some sort of evidence to back up that opinion.

Where did I assume this? Please quote it. A heterosexual can argues from a heterosexual viewpoint. A homosexual can argue from a homosexual viewpoint. A heterosexual can argues from a homosexual viewpoint. Just because I said that MS was looking from the viewpoint of a homosexual doesn't mean he/she is heterosexual. I was just commenting on how s/he was approaching the issue.

You assumed MS was heterosexual straight off the bat, without even bothering to ask the question. You showed no hesitation in assuming that you were arguing against a heterosexual.So do all heterosexuals arguing from the view point of a homosexual argue differently? Or is it that heterosexuals can't argue from a heterosexual viewpoint and support gay marriage? You're sending mixed messages here. And as per above can A homosexual argue from a heterosexual view point? You seemed to neglect that one.

Redefining marriage doesn't affect heterosexuals?

It won't make marriage mean any more or less by allowing homosexual marriages. It won't take anything away from a heterosexual marriage (past, present or future) so no, it doesn't really affect heterosexuals at all. The values upheld by marriage will not crumble, nor will they change if homosexual marriages are allowed. All that needs to change in the definition is the man+woman, i don't see how taht will affect heterosexuals.. its not as if they are the ones being denied the right to marry their partners.

You seem to be gay. You seem to be personally offended that I don't think you are deprived the right to marriage. Whether you are gay or not is irrelevant to me, your opinion holds no more or less weight based on your sexual preference.

You're assuming again. I am offended that homosexuals aren't seen as equals to heterosexuals, i'm also deeply hurt that my friends who are homosexuals are being viewed as a source of 'corruption', the source of the debasement of morals, evil incarnate and such nonsense because they would like the same recognition which is available to everyone else. Not only recognition of their relationship status, but also their status as valid human beings and deserving of treatment respectful of that status.

 

[eviltama]

i've always wondered what was the use of the so called 'silent majority'. I mean either you support something or you dont... sitting there in silence is sorta really useless. While the silent lot have opinions and such, whats the point of having them if you don't take the time to have your voice heard... its like having no voice at all.

*shrugs*

 

[poloktim]

This is ridiculous because the definition of marriage already excludes man-man or woman-woman marriages. It's like saying I'm being discriminated against because I can't be called a woman, ignoring the fact that I have a penis.

Part of the argument is about changing what the definition says. We all know that marriage is exclusive for man and woman, we're arguing that it should change.

I'm asking for 1 solid undeniable reason why homosexuals should have the right to marriage. When you want to initiate a change, the onus is on you to provide reasons for that change. Otherwise there would just be change for changes sake.

Same-sex relationships (and acts) are no longer criminalised anymore. The government supports (by supports, I mean doesn't ban) same-sex relationships, and amended the discrimination act to state that discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation is a crime. Same-sex couples should be given a way to express their relationship.

Marriage is religious, not exclusively, but it does have that connotation to it. Unfortunately for same-sex couples, many religions look down on them, but that doesn't mean that all homosexuals are going to be anti-religion. Some might hold on to as much of their religious ideals as possible, one is that marriage is based in love (religiously).

Actually, I'd say that the most commonly acknowledged purpose of marriage (at least traditionally) would be for a man and a woman to raise their own children. If you consider family to be one of the values, surely you acknowledge that family generally means the nuclear family structure. There are other definitions of family but this doesn't mean that they apply here - would a Mafia family be included in the symbols of marriage ^o)?

The definition of nuclear family came in for Menzies' golden era. At that time it was certainly much more taboo to be a homosexual, why would the definition of nuclear family be inclusive for them? Perhaps this is another definition that needs to be altered as well.

Ridiculous. The religious background and gender specifications are entailed in its sanctity and tradition. How is moving away from marriage's tradition going to keep it sanct and close to its tradition?

Religions, like always, will not be obliged to perform the ceremonies. The word marriage, whether performed by a religious tradtion, or secularly, can be enough to appease a religious (and otherwise) same-sex couple. Also why keep an unegalitarian tradition?

Exactly. If love was somehow entwined with marriage, the purposes of marriage in different social contexts would be the same. Just like if marriage was for wealth/status, it would still be for wealth/status now. One purpose of marriage has been common - that marriage is a formal recognition of a relationship between a man and a woman.

Some government departments use the context of love in marriage, however. Immigration, for example. Otherwise you could just marry anyone who wanted immigration. I don't think the government ends the marriage, but I know if you don't meet the qualifications, they can deport you.

Not true at all. Homosexuals would be gaining a formal recognition of their relationship, and would be entitled to all the benefits a heterosexual couple are currently entitled too. Unless homosexuals are currently entitled to MORE BENEFITS than heterosexuals, looks like a step forward to me!

It's still a case of "seperate, but equal." This is more opinionated now, as I am against segregation (much more than any form of inequality), and I see this as segregation. A step forward would be to recognise same-sex couples and different-sex couples who wish to join together in a marriage like contract, as married, not married and seperated. Even if different-sex couples were given the right to have a civil union, it still prevents same-sex couples from marriage.

What, are you a Macophobe?

I had a laugh out of this. Well done. Now for some babble: I'm not! I'm not!
Seriously, Macs are useful for video editing, and MacOSX brings it closer to Unix.

I'm afraid your understanding is in conflict with the actual appropriate definition. What Canadians have done is irrelevant.

The government is refusing to accept same-sex marriages that have happened overseas. Perhaps this is another reason why the debate is fired up. Why it's seen as discrimination (where it's not descrimination to people who are attracted to the same sex, it is discrimination for couples, but then that's me being pedantic). Why doesn't the government accept same-sex marriages that are done overseas. What happens in other countries, does affect Australia somehow. We're no longer that big isolated land down under where it would take six weeks for any communication with the outside world to be made.

Silence does not represent acceptance, or even tolerance.

Silence represents nothing. Neither acceptence, or opposition, tolerance, or even intolerance.

 

[400miles]

I AM NOT HERE TO DISCUSS GAY MARRIAGE STOP
I AM HERE TO POINT OUT A HOLE IN YOUR ARGUMENT STOP
THAT HOLE IS THE IDEA THAT GAYS ARE BEING DEPRIVED THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE STOP
WHETHER OR NOT GRANTING EXTRA RIGHTS IS GOOD IS IRRELEVANT STOP
IT WOULD ONLY BE RELEVANT IF I WERE PASSING A JUDGEMENT ON GAY MARRIAGE STOP
HOWEVER, I AM NOT STOP
THEREFORE, IT IS NOT STOP

Hmm.... how things have changed...

 

[neo o]

Hmm.... how things have changed...

You still post horridly. Nothing's changed.

 

[Rorix]

Respond to the serious posts in the morning.

Hmm.... how things have changed...

Stop trolling kthx.

 

[400miles]

You still post horridly. Nothing's changed.

Oh you mean you're still reading? Would you like to answer my post where I posed you all those questions then? They were by all means serious and you avoid them.

 

[400miles]

Respond to the serious posts in the morning.




Stop trolling kthx.

Sure, for you... anything.

I couldn't help posting it. It was just so... ironic.