Same sex marriages (1 Viewer)

DO you like the idea of same sex marriages?

  • Yes

    Votes: 77 68.8%
  • No

    Votes: 35 31.3%

  • Total voters
    112

Amleops

Perpetual Student
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
816
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
It's been a bit frustrating having seen this debate being held across so many different places, with so many different people, and yet every time I hear it the arguments on both sides are more or less the same, and largely irrelevant. I have never seen anybody, from either side, sufficiently address what is clearly the extremely large elephant in the room.

Maybe I just haven't been looking hard enough. But it has been briefly mentioned here:

My question is then why are they not content with the civil unions and same civil rights? Why seek the word marriage?
I haven't seen anyone give a sufficient answer to this yet. So, supporters, I ask you again. What would marriage achieve that civil union reform does not?
 

classicjimbo

Active Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
103
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
It's been a bit frustrating having seen this debate being held across so many different places, with so many different people, and yet every time I hear it the arguments on both sides are more or less the same, and largely irrelevant. I have never seen anybody, from either side, sufficiently address what is clearly the extremely large elephant in the room.

Maybe I just haven't been looking hard enough. But it has been briefly mentioned here:



I haven't seen anyone give a sufficient answer to this yet. So, supporters, I ask you again. What would marriage achieve that civil union reform does not?
It would achieve exactly the same and is a viable alternative when you think simplistically but...

(I've only taken about 2 law related courses so forgive if errors but: )

One huge aspect of marriage that same sex couples want is to have the legal/tax/etc. protections and what not that man-woman marriage currently offers.

These legal/tax/etc. protections that marriage etc. brings are defined in legislation as marriage only and marriage is defined as man & woman. To amend or repeal basically the entire marriage act amongst others so that civil union provides the same or similar benefits would be such a monumental task.

Not only is redefining the legal definition of marriage an act of equality but it's also so SO much simpler for lawmakers to do. Lets be real parliament is not going to spend the time going through and voting on the amendments of every single section and regulation to include '...and civil union'.

To simply redefine marriage is a more realistic and desired outcome.


There may be other reasons but this is the most logical to me :rolleyes2:
 

Amleops

Perpetual Student
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
816
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
So it's a convenience thing. Fair enough.

But would it really take that long? Yes there are many changes being made to many different laws, but seeing as they are all achieving the same purpose, surely the Parliament could vote on the amendments as a whole rather than each single amendment individually?

Gay marriage isn't exactly going through the Parliament at warp speed either; although the legislative changes are simple it does create a stronger political divide in Parliament which create barriers to it passing. I'd hedge my bets on saying that even if it would take a bit of work to get all the civil union reforms just right, it would probably get through Parliament long before the current Marriage bills would.
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,757
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
It would achieve exactly the same and is a viable alternative when you think simplistically but...

(I've only taken about 2 law related courses so forgive if errors but: )

One huge aspect of marriage that same sex couples want is to have the legal/tax/etc. protections and what not that man-woman marriage currently offers.

These legal/tax/etc. protections that marriage etc. brings are defined in legislation as marriage only and marriage is defined as man & woman. To amend or repeal basically the entire marriage act amongst others so that civil union provides the same or similar benefits would be such a monumental task.

Not only is redefining the legal definition of marriage an act of equality but it's also so SO much simpler for lawmakers to do. Lets be real parliament is not going to spend the time going through and voting on the amendments of every single section and regulation to include '...and civil union'.

To simply redefine marriage is a more realistic and desired outcome.


There may be other reasons but this is the most logical to me :rolleyes2:
Not really when there's already de facto relationships in existence. the legal and tax obligations are essentially the same between defacto and married couples.

It's just the federal government recognizing marriage. I'm sure a bill has already been drafted and it just takes parliament to vote on it. Doesn't exactly take long, I mean its the job of parliament to pass law so I don't really get that 'barriers' argument. It's all petty politics really.
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
883
Location
Freezer aisle
Gender
Female
HSC
2015
Not necessarily, see a gay man can marry a gay woman if he wants. He may not love her, nor be sexually attracted (and her to him), but if they remain faithful to one another (sex or not), no child will be born without both parents.
Did you just give an okay to forcing people into marrying someone they don't want to be with? That goes against freedom of speech and human rights. What if someone forced you to marry some random person for a greater purpose in society? Who would do that....

So couples who cannot have children still follow the marriage conditions as they are a man and woman. That means if a person from a same-sex couple transitioned to the opposite sex then that will be accepted for marriage since it's now a male and female? Unless for marriage, there needs to be a background check if in fact they are a heterosexual couple? That pretty much sums marriage to be on the basis of image+wealth.
 

Fiction

Active Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
779
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2015
I thought marriage was just one of the ways to create a familial bond between two individual is (incest ofc would be an exemption). Family is the core of the notion of marriage, which has obviously been acknowledged in almost, if not, everyone's posts here. I personally support same sex marriage, because, as what others have mentioned before, it doesn't harm me in any shape or form while simultaneously, among many other things, further equality.

I skimmed through the posts so I don't know if someone's said this before, but the English language, having been used in a patriarchal dominated society for so long, is very bias in its meaning. What marriage was intended for, in a patriarchal society (making a mother?/ matriology..?) I don't think should be viewed too seriously in our more gender-equal community today. Especially as the purpose of alot of things have changed - the very definition of a male and female's responsibilities and social role in our society have changed as compared to say a 100 years ago. E.g, it's now starting to become socially acceptable for women to hold jobs stereotypically associated with men.

Me and my little brother are close. I love him very much and support him (and vice versa) and we want to spend the rest of our lives together. just chilling and travelling together etc.

Can we get married?
Excluding incest, most people marry to create a family. While a family is usually regarded to be of two parents and a child, in contemporary society, children do not necessarily have to form the core of a familly, with plenty of couples who choose not to have children nowadays. If same-sex marriage was legalised you could marry your brother. But would you want to be viewed as a couple and shoulder the same expectations of a couple? These people, who are of the same gender and wish to get married, are willing to accept the role of a married couple.

As a male I want to be educated at an all-girls school. Oh wait, it's a school created for the purpose of educating girls, and so the criteria is that you must be a female to join. Discrimination?
But what intentions would you have for joining a female school that is acceptable? What's the difference between all girls schools and other schools based on education? Legalising marriage doesn't harm or insult any parties.
You're missing this point.

You see every reason the "for same-sex marriage" people use, can be applied to any other couple, or group of people. In future marriage will only become redundant once you separate it from its purpose.
But the purpose of marriage, you're arguing, is based upon creating a child. Does that mean that all couples who currently do not have children, nor are they planning to have children, are defying the purpose of marriage? what about same sex couples who wish to adopt a child or have a child through surrogacy mothers? The purpose of marriage is shifting, as the notion of a family, which marriage is about, is changing.

If 100% of the population was into same sex marriages, we wouldn't have a population at all.
I really doubt that 100% of the population would be into same sex marriages. That's a close to impossible scenario. What you're illustrating is an irrational fear of a possibility which has such a low percentage of realism. That's the equivalent of me saying, "oh. We shouldn't let any asylum seekers in becaue they're all going to steal our jobs, despite their lacking socio and economic status."

They're still valid because they're not producing fatherless children (refer to earlier post), or children without either one of the parents.
I don't comprehend. What makes a same-sex couple more prone to divorcing than any other couple? All marriages carry the risk of divorce. Yes, an ideal family does have two parents, but truely what's the difference between the role of a mother and a father?

Lesbians and gay couples both cannot make children.

It is only possible via male or female sperm contributions.
And why should a child produced through those means be any different from a child who has been produced through traditional means?

I'm still not understanding why homosexual couple's inability to create children should allow us to prohibit them from marriage? That's like saying marriage should be restricted to only fertile couples - which it isn't. Where's the equality in that?

Marriage has existed the way it has for thousands of years for a reason, and that is not being considered by the gay movement.
And yet, feminism has likewise been not considered for thousands of years and that's changing.
Because its not simply about love. It's is a social structure to protect children, by providing both parents.
And you would be providing both parents to a child who has been adopted/ conceived through surrogacy etc, by a same sex couple. The only difference is that both parents have the same gender. You're not denying a child the love/protection/whatever from two parents. Again, what's the difference between a mother and father's role?
 

Fiction

Active Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
779
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2015
Did you just give an okay to forcing people into marrying someone they don't want to be with? That goes against freedom of speech and human rights. What if someone forced you to marry some random person for a greater purpose in society? Who would do that....

So couples who cannot have children still follow the marriage conditions as they are a man and woman. That means if a person from a same-sex couple transitioned to the opposite sex then that will be accepted for marriage since it's now a male and female? Unless for marriage, there needs to be a background check if in fact they are a heterosexual couple? That pretty much sums marriage to be on the basis of image+wealth.
He's not forcing them to marry though and a gay woman marrying a gay man is hardly for a greater purpose in society.

Honestly, if a gay man wishes to marry a gay woman, as long as he obtains consent, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But Ibiblical, isn't that example rejecting the 'purpose' of marriage anyways?

I haven't seen anyone give a sufficient answer to this yet. So, supporters, I ask you again. What would marriage achieve that civil union reform does not?
I think inherently people seek marriage rather than civil union, because of the connotations of the word. Besdies why should there be segregation between same sex couples and non-same sex couples?
 

Queenroot

I complete the Squar3
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
7,473
Location
My bathtub
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Same sex parents cannot procreate. They need to undergo IVF and new birth technology.

The sexual union of different sex couples is what reproduces the human race. If same sex couples want to reproduce, they would put a strain on current health systems (if it were mainstream).
You don't have to be married to make babies



this is an interesting discussion...

food for thought: do you guys believe that some can be born gay or do you elect yourself to become homosexual once you've become more educationally informed?
There's something called the Kinsey scale and there's a whole spectrum of sexual orientations that people have. I guess most people learn through experiences (though I'm not gay so I wouldn't know) that they emotionally connect more with people of the same sex than the opposite one.
Kind of like how some people go through many partners before they find the "one". You'll know what fits you best once you have experiences.
 

Amleops

Perpetual Student
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
816
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
I think inherently people seek marriage rather than civil union, because of the connotations of the word.
Yes, see that's what I thought people would say. And if that's the case, then it really just boils down to a trivial issue of semantics.

Whether you call it a marriage or a union is not really important. They're all the same thing. I see no reason why people should be caught up in that.

Besdies why should there be segregation between same sex couples and non-same sex couples?
Nothing wrong with segregation. There are no immediate negative effects that come from that.

In the end it's just about making sure everybody is happy. And with civil union reform everybody should be happy if gay marriage supporters can get over the trivial semantics issue.
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,757
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Nothing wrong with segregation. There are no immediate negative effects that come from that.
Yeah the blacks in pre1964 America and apartheid south africa was having a blast.

"And with civil union reform everybody should be happy if gay marriage supporters can get over the trivial semantics issue."

There's other implications as well especially for people who want to live overseas (for purposes of migration). Why would you want to prevent marriage if there's a civil union already? seems like a shitty reason of denying people certain rights.

"As a male I want to be educated at an all-girls school. Oh wait, it's a school created for the purpose of educating girls, and so the criteria is that you must be a female to join. Discrimination?"

- No it's a bona fide reason. God some people are thick.

"Lesbians and gay couples both cannot make children.

It is only possible via male or female sperm contributions."

Yeah same could be said about people who are sterile. You're not going to make an argument preventing them from having children would you? People have gay parents and they turned out ok. Don't know what you're harping on about.
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,757
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children
No it wasn't. Marriage has always been about inheritance and establishing political/economic families. Only until recently have people really married for 'love'.
 

Amleops

Perpetual Student
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
816
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Yeah the blacks in pre1964 America and apartheid south africa was having a blast.
Ah well, here we have another example of a seemingly inoccuous word that has picked up negative connotations. Segregation is merely separation; the setting of certain groups apart. For example, I segregate the winter clothes in my cupboard from the summer clothes, or I segregate the fruit in my fridge from the dairy products. There is nothing necessarily bad with that per se, it depends in the context in which it is applied.

Naturally there are some things segregation shouldn't be applied to, like race. Racial segregation like apartheid and what not was clearly used for subjugation. The difference here is that the segregation of marriage from civil unions is only a semantic one. Both institutions would, given the necessary reforms, be equal under the law, and apart from the name of each institution, everything else is the same. In this case segregation works; gay marriage detractors are happy that the marriage institution is not being changed, and gay marriage supporters are happy that homosexuals can have their relationships recognised on an equal footing to heterosexual couples.

There's other implications as well especially for people who want to live overseas (for purposes of migration). Why would you want to prevent marriage if there's a civil union already? seems like a shitty reason of denying people certain rights.
OK, well let's get one thing straight first. Marriage, in itself, is not a right. Being able to be in a relationship with whoever you choose, and to have that relationship recognised equally under the law, that is a right. Marriage is merely one of the mechanisms that can be used to achieve this. Civil union reform is another. So it has never been an issue of "denying rights", it's an issue of what mechanism would be the most effective in achieving those rights.

Now, there are civil unions already, and I doubt there are too many people who object to their existence. Reform of civil unions seem like a superior option in that it achieves the same purpose of marriage, and antagonises less people in the process. The only possible problem I see is the one that Classicjimbo brought up, but I do think that can be dealt with adequately.

And if married homosexuals from other countries want to move to another country with sufficient enough civil union laws, they are still considered equal under the law, and whether or not they are referred to as "married" or "unified" is hardly important.
 
Last edited:

townie

Premium Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
9,662
Location
Gladesville
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Uni Grad
2009
Yes, because there is no non-religious/traditional argument against it
 

Absolutezero

real human bean
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
15,106
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
It's not about the law, it's about the power and meaning we imbue words.

Civil union is inherently meaningless in this regard.
 

Amleops

Perpetual Student
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
816
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
It's not about the law, it's about the power and meaning we imbue words.

Civil union is inherently meaningless in this regard.
And that's exactly why this whole debate has been made a much bigger deal than what it should be.

Civil unions have the potential to achieve the same outcomes as marriage, and would arguably be easier and less difficult to implement. Yet many people reject them because like you said, they're caught up in all the trivial semantics surrounding the word "marriage". There's no logical reason why people should be caring about what their union is called, when in practical respects it is exactly the same as everybody elses.
 

Crobat

#tyrannosaurusREKT
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
1,151
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Not really when there's already de facto relationships in existence. the legal and tax obligations are essentially the same between defacto and married couples.
problem with de facto relationships though is that there are certain criteria very easily dispelled when old mate jack and jill who bumped into each other on the bus this morning can rock up and sign a contract in the same afternoon to get the benefits

it's a good effort so far as trying to equalise the rights goes but it never existed to purposely give same-sex couples the same rights

------

it's all well and good to have a debate about the purpose for and meaning of marriage but none of it is relevant because neither is prescribed in law and what we call the 'definition' of marriage actually just ends at a 'civil union' (recognised as a contract) to which your eligibility is to be a man and woman

that eligibility is flippantly discriminatory at the moment because they have not given a purpose to marriage in law to suggest that same-sex marriage would be counter-productive to that purpose

as a legal institution it fails its own test of equality under the rule of law that commonwealth nations love to flop out whenever some other country shits on their law
 

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,911
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
even if it is basically symbolic and makes no difference, the symbolism of equality is important enough to justify it and I do not really see the problem with it apart from a few religious people being up in arms about how completely unrelated people get it on in the privacy of their own home
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,757
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
as a legal institution it fails its own test of equality under the rule of law that commonwealth nations love to flop out whenever some other country shits on their law
When it comes to obligations its essentially the same.

If you're in a partnered relationship, the law uses very interesting ways to enforce property rights/obligations.

There was a case where a lesbian couple had a kid under IVF. They ended up splitting and the one who didn't bare the child didn't want to pay child support (coz it's not hers). HCA ruled she had to pay child support until the kid is 18 through theories of estoppel.

old mate jack and jill who bumped into each other on the bus this morning can rock up and sign a contract in the same afternoon to get the benefits
And when they get a divorce they get fucked. Same sex couples can register in de-facto on the same day as well. You can also get registered relationships.
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,444
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
The purpose of the institution of marriage is to unite one man and one woman as one (through physical complementarity) in order to produce a child, such that every child has a father and a mother. Now while not all parents have children, under ideal marriage, every child has a father and mother.
...
Under ideal marriage most children have both parents.
Same-sex couples are as capable at parenting as heterosexual couples. There is no compelling evidence that having a mother and father is necessary or significantly beneficial to child development.

This is the formal position of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association.


The government couldn't care less who you're with, who you love or who you sleep with with. But laws are created to protect societies and opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the idea same-sex couples cannot get married, because marriage is....(refer to previous post).
Homosexual sex was still a criminal act in Australia in 1997, in drafting these old laws the government most definitely did care who you love and who you slept with.

They're still valid because they're not producing fatherless children (refer to earlier post), or children without either one of the parents.
Producing fatherless children isn't a bad thing.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top