Gay marriage in Australia

[bilby]

Why don't we have it?

Australia has overwhelming public support for equality on this issue; Of course it is very obvious in Kings Cross and Darlinghurst, but when the LNP Member for a seat in Far North Queensland is vocal in his support for marriage equality, and the Prime Minister's sister is engaged to a woman, you know that it is well past time for a change in the law.

The stumbling block, unsurprisingly, is religion; And in particular, Roman Catholicism. And in even more particular, the Prime Minister's Roman Catholicism, and the disproportionate representation RCs have in parliament.

Not only are there more self-described Catholics per capita in Parliament than in the country as a whole; They tend to be more strict in their adherence to RC dogma than the average Aussie catholic.

Why is this? It seems that in part, the electorate are more keen for their representatives to be religious devotees than they are to be devotees themselves - almost as if voting for an avowed Christian is an atonement for not being devout themselves.

Also contributing to this is the support (not only financial) and encouragement that candidates get from their churches. The lack of organised non-theist groups that can encourage or support prospective candidates, both in the community and within the structure of the major parties, leads to an over-representation of religion in the offices of power.

Personally I am in two minds as to what to do about this on a personal level. On the one hand, I have connections with the ALP, and could re-join that party, and either agitate for, or even stand myself as, a secular candidate for office; However the ALP is a hotbed Roman Catholicism, even here in Queensland (and it is far worse in NSW). The other path I am considering is to join the Secular Party of Australia, but in our effectively two party system, their influence is unlikely ever to be very significant. The absence of a State Senate in QLD means that the only real chance for an Secular Party candidate is the Federal Senate, and getting elected there is basically a lottery - for minor parties it all depends on preference deals and a fair bit of dumb luck.

The National President of the Secular Party is in Brisbane at the end of June, and I am going to go along to a meeting and sound out what the party are about - and perhaps to join up. Of course, if Christine Forster is right, the marriage equality issue will have been resolved long before the next Federal election; But there are plenty of other important issues for secularism in Australia that are worthy of my time and effort in support.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I was going through the summarized history on wikipedia, and I believe I have found the solution. Really, you just need to follow the example of the church and indoctrinate some children. It just has to be the right children:

In May 2013, the then backbencher Kevin Rudd announced he had changed his position based on personal experience and the fact that his children had long thought him "an unreconstructed dinosaur" for not supporting marriage equality legislation. He went on to say that "I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same sex marriage" while opposing any compulsion for churches to marry same-sex couples if that was not their wish. On his return to the office of Prime Minister in June 2013, PM Kevin Rudd has become the first Australian Prime Minister to be an open supporter of changing the Marriage Act to include Same-Sex couples.

 

[bilby]

I was going through the summarized history on wikipedia, and I believe I have found the solution. Really, you just need to follow the example of the church and indoctrinate some children. It just has to be the right children:

In May 2013, the then backbencher Kevin Rudd announced he had changed his position based on personal experience and the fact that his children had long thought him "an unreconstructed dinosaur" for not supporting marriage equality legislation. He went on to say that "I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same sex marriage" while opposing any compulsion for churches to marry same-sex couples if that was not their wish. On his return to the office of Prime Minister in June 2013, PM Kevin Rudd has become the first Australian Prime Minister to be an open supporter of changing the Marriage Act to include Same-Sex couples.

My first wife was Kevin's Electorate Officer back when he was a backbencher, and spent a lot of her time 'babysitting' Kevin's children, particularly Marcus (the youngest son). I won't claim credit for successfully carrying out the strategy you suggest, but I, and to a greater extent, number one wife, certainly had some input.

 

[mojorising]

There seems to be a pervasive atmosphere of assumption in the Australian press just now that everybody is OK with the cultural institution of marriage being redefined to accommodate the legal needs of the gay community.

Marriage is a human cultural institution common to all cultures and dating back 10s of thousands of years. It has its roots in the evolved pair-bonding behaviour of the human species for reproductive purposes.

If gays want legal recognition of their partnerships then could this not be achieved without redefining marriage?

I feel that the gay community could be more understanding of historical cultural values and settle for legal partnerships without redefining the term 'marriage'.

There must already be a gay marriage thread on this forum? I would be keen to read it to get folks POV.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Marriage is a human cultural institution common to all cultures and dating back 10s of thousands of years. It has its roots in the evolved pair-bonding behaviour of the human species for reproductive purposes.

I would say it's roots were more involved in the ownership and transfer of property.
That's why there are so many traditions of arranged marriages, of families seeking a good match. Or royals seeking peace, diplomatic partnerships, that sort of thing.

Plenty of infertile people have married, or married couples have not destroyed or redefined marriage by being choosing to be childless couples. So maybe it either is NOT involved with reproductive purpose, or it's not EXCLUSIVELY involved in reproductive purpose.

I think before we worry about 'redefining' marriage, perhaps we should all agree on how to define marriage.

Welcome to Talk Freethought, mojorising.

 

[mojorising]

Thanks Keith.

Well, yes the cultural institution of marraige has been co-opted throughout history to achieve goals unrelated to the basic function of marriage (such as property transfer) but I think the basis of the institution is the mating pair-bonding behaviour of the species homo-sapiens. Since homo-sapiens has also evolved the intellectual resources to evolve 'culture' as part of social living then we have also developed ceremonies to celebrate life's key events. 'Marriage' is the celebration of the pair-bonding of a man and a woman with the traditional expectation that this binds 2 families together genetically through progeny (although that does not always happen).

(is there an instruction guide on vBulletin 4 somewhere? How do you quote one line from somebody's post? there used to be a q-qoute button in vBulletin 3)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Thanks Keith.

Well, yes the cultural institution of marraige has been co-opted throughout history to achieve goals unrelated to the basic concept of marriage (such as property transfer) but I think the basis of the institution is the mating pair-bonding behaviour of the species homo-sapiens.

Okay. But even if it was the basis, how do you go about establishing that it's still a useful base for deciding who can/cannot marry?

Since homo-sapiens has also evolved the intellectual resources to evolve 'culture' as part of social living then we have also developed ceremonies to celebrate life's key events. 'Marriage' is the celebration of the pair-bonding of a man and a woman with the traditional expectation that this binds 2 families together genetically through progeny (although that does not always happen).

Okay, it doesn't always happen. So why is that a basis for denying marriage to some but not all?
IF marriage is FOR PROGENY then why don't post-menopausal women getting married 'redefine' marriage?
My first Chief had a vasectomy before his second marriage. No problem there.
Neil Patrick Harris has a kid, so isn't that a good marriage?
Melissa Etheridge has a kid, so isn't that a good marriage?

(is there an instruction guide on vBulletin 4 somewhere? How do you quote one line from somebody's post? there used to be a q-qoute button in vBulletin 3)

You put [ quote ] tags in front of what you want to quote, and [ / quote ] tags at the end of the quote.
But without the spaces

 

[Keith&Co.]

Mojo, for part of my life, my own marriage would not have been recognized as a legal marriage.

It is, now. How does that affect anyone else? What, exactly, was redefined when the courts said that the distinction in some laws was a stupid distinction to make, and allowed me and my partner to solemnize our partnership?

How did it affect you? Or my parents? Or the church down the street? Or anyone between 1st and 97th avenue, Northside?

If it's been 'co-opted,' as you say, why stop now? Who is hurt if we co-opt it a little further?

 

[mojorising]

Okay, it doesn't always happen. So why is that a basis for denying marriage to some but not all?

One reason is that marriage is a cultural tradition with an existing definition. Cultural traditions have inherent value as culture takes a long time to evolve. It seems that we are often obliged to observe cultural traditions of minorities. This is a cultural tradition that has evolved separately in every human culture ever known. It is between a man and a woman.

Out of respect for cultural traditional I think gays should accept an alternative designation for their partnerships.

IF marriage is FOR PROGENY then why don't post-menopausal women getting married 'redefine' marriage?

The cultural definition came about for reproductive pair-bonding reasons. The cultural definition is that marriage is a lifetime partnership between a man and a woman. Post-menopausal women can take advantage of the existing cultural tradition without redefining it.

Gays who want legally recognised partnerships cannot take advantage of this tradition without a substantial redefinition which is offensive to people who hold the tradition dear. Gays don't need to have the tradition redefined to serve their legal needs. They can have legal structure enacted which supports their legal needs under gay partnerships without redefining the cultural concept of marriage.

 

[mojorising]

Mojo, for part of my life, my own marriage would not have been recognized as a legal marriage.

It is, now. How does that affect anyone else? What, exactly, was redefined when the courts said that the distinction in some laws was a stupid distinction to make, and allowed me and my partner to solemnize our partnership?

Not asking personal questions but without understanding the nature of the distinction that you say was dissolved I cannot answer the question.

 

[Keith&Co.]

One reason is that marriage is a cultural tradition with an existing definition.

So we change the definition.
In this country, we have been changing lots of definitions over the last 200 years. Voting used to be for educated white landowners. We've added poor people, women, blacks... Change is not anathema, here.

Cultural traditions have inherent value as culture takes a long time to evolve.

Yes. And this is another evolution.

It seems that we are often obliged to observe cultural traditions of minorities. This is a cultural tradition that has evolved separately in every human culture ever known. It is between a man and a woman.

Except when iit hasn't been.
The Catholic Church has had a man/man marriage ritual in its history.
I think i read a news story a couple of years ago about a girl being married to a dog as some sort of superstition in India.
Marriage has its uses, and they're not set in stone.

Out of respect for cultural traditional I think gays should accept an alternative designation for their partnerships.

The problem there is that there are a number of legal benefits reserved for married couples. Say, if a partner is unconscious, the 'spouse' can be the automatic medical proxy. There's no telling if a hospital will observe an alternative designation for that right.

And why should gays accept this second-class citizen sort of standing? 'Respect' for a culture that's treated them the way it has? Why respect something so disrespectful?

IF marriage is FOR PROGENY then why don't post-menopausal women getting married 'redefine' marriage?

The cultural definition came about for reproductive pair-bonding reasons.

Prove it.

The cultural definition is that marriage is a lifetime partnership between a man and a woman. Post-menopausal women can take advantage of the existing cultural tradition without redefining it.

How does that work?
And why doesn't it work for gays?
Why can't two men take advantage of an existing tradition of 'grown adults solemnizing their commitment?'

Gays who want legally recognised partnerships cannot take advantage of this tradition without a substantial redefinition which is offensive to people who hold the tradition dear.

Speaking as someone whose own personal partnership offends many people who hold their traditions dear, i think the legal term for my response would be "Big fucking deal."
I have the right. I think i deserve the right.
And if someone's offended by my having or using the right, that's their issue. Not mine.

Gays don't need to have the tradition redefined to serve their legal needs.

Actually, they do.
For laws and not-state-policies (schools, hospitals, loan companies) written for the benefit of 'spouses,' we need to make sure they're legally qualified as 'spouses.'

 

[Keith&Co.]

Mojo, for part of my life, my own marriage would not have been recognized as a legal marriage.

It is, now. How does that affect anyone else? What, exactly, was redefined when the courts said that the distinction in some laws was a stupid distinction to make, and allowed me and my partner to solemnize our partnership?

Not asking personal questions but without understanding the nature of the distinction that you say was dissolved I cannot answer the question.

Why not?
What difference does it make? What distinction COULD there be that affects you in any way?
If my wife was infertile?
Divorced?
Not the same caste?
Not the same skin color?
Not the same religion?
How could any of it affect you at all?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There seems to be a pervasive atmosphere of assumption in the Australian press just now that everybody is OK with the cultural institution of marriage being redefined to accommodate the legal needs of the gay community.

That does not seem to be the case, as far as I can tell. Rather, some media outlets (maybe most; I'm not so familar) are saying that the majority support same-sex marriage. They're not saying that everybody does. Nor are they saying that most agree with you about the concept of marriage, let alone that it would be redefined to "accomodate the legal needs of the gay community".

On the other hand, it seems that they're right (based on opinion polls) about most people's support for legalizing same-sex marriage. It seems Australia, like Germany, is a place where the public is mostly in favor, but lawmakers aren't, and since there is not going to be a referendum, for now it remains illegal (on the other hand, there are places where lawmakers allowed it when the majority opposed, e.g., Argentina).

But that aside, if you want to make a general moral case against same-sex marriage based on the alleged definition of marriage, I would suggest the subforum for moral issues, and a clear explanation of why it would be immoral to pass a law applying the term "marriage" to some same-sex unions - or whatever moral case you're trying to make.
On the other hand, if your moral case is limited to a specific place (e.g., Australia), still I would recommend explaining it carefully - and also being clear about what other people (like some media outlets) actually claim.

There must already be a gay marriage thread on this forum? I would be keen to read it to get folks POV.

There are several, but usually they're linked to a specific legal system, and involve debates of both legal and moral issues, often conflated with each other.

 

[mojorising]

So we change the definition.

Why should we change the definition of a tradition that dates back to prehistory? Why doesnt't the gay community start its own tradition of gay unions or partnerships?

The Catholic Church has had a man/man marriage ritual in its history.

You may be able to dig up obscure references to marriages that do not conform to the normal heterosexual definition but I think 99.99999% of historical cultural references to marriage are references to the normal heterosexual definition.

And why should gays accept this second-class citizen sort of standing? 'Respect' for a culture that's treated them the way it has? Why respect something so disrespectful?

Why should gays not show some respect for the culture that has recently accepted them by not meddling with the definitions of that culture's traditions?

Prove it

How would such a thing be provable? The cultural institution of marriage as a heterosexual institution dates back to prehistory. I think its basis in the heterosexual pair-bonding of humans is self-evident.

How does that work?
And why doesn't it work for gays?

It works because marriage has an existing definition which works for menopausal women but it does not work for gays. Gays can start their own tradition if they want, they don't need to distort the definition of an existing one.

For laws and not-state-policies (schools, hospitals, loan companies) written for the benefit of 'spouses,' we need to make sure they're legally qualified as 'spouses.'

The law can be reworded to cater for all civil unions (including marriages). The definition of marriage as a cultural institution would then not have to be changed.

On the other hand, it seems that they're right (based on opinion polls) about most people's support for legalizing same-sex marriage.

I think many people simply express support by default because they feel it is politically incorrect to state what they truly feel about gays being allowed to redefine marriage.

(How can you do quotes that name the person being quoted?)

 

[J842P]

One reason is that marriage is a cultural tradition with an existing definition. Cultural traditions have inherent value as culture takes a long time to evolve. It seems that we are often obliged to observe cultural traditions of minorities. This is a cultural tradition that has evolved separately in every human culture ever known. It is between a man and a woman.

Out of respect for cultural traditional I think gays should accept an alternative designation for their partnerships.

IF marriage is FOR PROGENY then why don't post-menopausal women getting married 'redefine' marriage?

The cultural definition came about for reproductive pair-bonding reasons. The cultural definition is that marriage is a lifetime partnership between a man and a woman. Post-menopausal women can take advantage of the existing cultural tradition without redefining it.

Gays who want legally recognised partnerships cannot take advantage of this tradition without a substantial redefinition which is offensive to people who hold the tradition dear. Gays don't need to have the tradition redefined to serve their legal needs. They can have legal structure enacted which supports their legal needs under gay partnerships without redefining the cultural concept of marriage.

Sorry, dude. No one cares if marriage is being redefined. Only bigots. Also, no one cares if bigoted people are offended by the redefinition. The majority now believe that gay people deserve equal acceptance into the culture at large, and that includes their relationships being recognized the same as heterosexual relationships. I'm sorry this bothers you, but perhaps you should be more bothered by how people with your attitude will be remembered.

- - - Updated - - -

I think many people simply express support by default because they feel it is politically incorrect to state what they truly feel about gays being allowed to redefine marriage.

(How can you do quotes that name the person being quoted?)

Sorry. Your attitude is outdated and thankfully on it's way to being relegated to the dustbin of history. Your side lost.

 

[dystopian]

Marriage is a human cultural institution common to all cultures

Wrong. Many cultures throughout history have had no concept of marriage; including some that still exist today. The Mosuo for instance, an ethnic group in western China, has no concept of a traditional marriage between partners. And of course many cultures have had forms of marriage that are incompatible with your understanding of the word. Polygamous marriages have been quite common in some parts of the world for instance, and gay marriage was not at all unheard of in ancient Rome. Then there's plenty of cultures that have three recognized genders, which also comes into play with marriage in those cultures; this is the case for instance with some native-american cultures (some which even recognize four genders).

and dating back 10s of thousands of years.

There is absolutely no evidence of this. Written history doesn't go back that far.

It has its roots in the evolved pair-bonding behaviour of the human species for reproductive purposes.

This is an unsupported claim, and discredited by the existence of non-marriage based cultures; and by tribal cultures where raising children is done in a communal fashion (thus meaning there is no need for a traditional mother and father)

If gays want legal recognition of their partnerships then could this not be achieved without redefining marriage?

It could. But why would that be necessary? Only a small stubborn minority of people are opposed to gay marriage; and by creating a separate structure for gay people you are telling them they are 'different'; which perpetuates undesirable attitudes towards them as minorities.

I feel that the gay community could be more understanding of historical cultural values and settle for legal partnerships without redefining the term 'marriage'.

But you don't seem understanding of historical cultural values yourself; you're just stating with absolute authority what marriage has been historically, when you are clearly wrong.

The cultural definition came about for reproductive pair-bonding reasons. The cultural definition is that marriage is a lifetime partnership between a man and a woman.

Wrong again. In ancient Mesopotamian cultures for instance, (where the first civilizations emerged and which are thus much closer to the original definition than your more modern definition) marriage was neither a partnership nor lifelong. Wives were not partners, they were *bought* in the exact same fashion as slaves. Indeed, the legal procedures surrounding the acquisition of wives was almost identical to that of slaves in the legal code, as seen in the Code of Hammurabi. Similarly, these partnerships were hardly lifelong; divorce was by no means unusual or frowned upon.

In other cultures, there were explicitly temporary marriage constructs. In 17th century Scotland for instance, there was the practice of the so called left-handed marriage, a marriage which only lasted a year at the end of which the couple could decide to either marry permanently or separate without consequences. There's also fixed-term marriages in various Muslim cultures, which can be traced to pre-islamic Arab practices.

Gays who want legally recognised partnerships cannot take advantage of this tradition without a substantial redefinition which is offensive to people who hold the tradition dear.

You mean offensive to the small minority of people who hold *A* definition of marriage dear. As already shown, that is by no means the only definition. It certainly isn't the definition that actually makes the most sense to apply: namely that marriage is a bond entered between people who love each other. Why do you need to exclude people on the basis of gender? Two guys marrying each other changes NOTHING about the value of the marriage between a man and a woman who hold a different definition of the word. Who cares if they're "offended" by it? Nobody's forcing them to gay marry.

You may be able to dig up obscure references to marriages that do not conform to the normal heterosexual definition but I think 99.99999% of historical cultural references to marriage are references to the normal heterosexual definition.

The references that I've dug up are hardly obscure. As for whether or not the historical cultural references are 99,9% swinging a certain way, that isn't particularly relevant: especially given that written sources will be biased towards the cultural interpretations of their authors and the fact that writing was restricted to very small numbers of people until recently.

Why should gays not show some respect for the culture that has recently accepted them by not meddling with the definitions of that culture's traditions?

You keep arguing this point about 'respecting' the culture... but this makes absolutely zero sense as an argument since it's the *culture* that is redefining traditions, not specifically the gay members of said culture. And beyond that, why SHOULDN'T minorities ask for things like the right to marry who they want? How is that somehow offensive?

How would such a thing be provable? The cultural institution of marriage as a heterosexual institution dates back to prehistory.

It's hard to take you seriously when you make claims like this. You're just saying that it does, without providing even the slightest bit of evidence. Indeed, it makes no sense to make this claim because in order to support it you would need to firmly and beyond question establish that the laws of a civilization established it as solely a 'heterosexual' institution... which is impossible without written sources. And of course since we're talking about *prehistory*, there can't be any written sources.

I think its basis in the heterosexual pair-bonding of humans is self-evident.

But as already pointed out, humans are NOT inherently monogamous. There is no universal heterosexual pair-bonding of humans.

Furthermore, what you think is self-evident, and what actually is, are two different things. If we're going to determine laws and traditions that affect the happiness of large numbers of people, we really *shouldn't* base any of it on what is or is not "self-evident".

The law can be reworded to cater for all civil unions (including marriages). The definition of marriage as a cultural institution would then not have to be changed.

You're proposing a lot of work just so that a handful of old-fashioned people don't get 'offended'. It's easier to just let gay people marry.

Plus, it is actually far more offensive to explicitly tell people that they're different (Telling people that they can't marry like all the 'normal' people isn't really any different from telling a black person they got to use the back entrance) than to tell people that they have to accept that others can use the same institution.

I think many people simply express support by default because they feel it is politically incorrect to state what they truly feel about gays being allowed to redefine marriage.

If you genuinely think that then you're seriously out of touch with the modern world.

People express support not because they're afraid of being 'politically incorrect'. That doesn't explain why anonymous surveys show massive support for gay rights. People express support because they genuinely can not understand why someone should not be allowed to marry the person they love. They express support because the side that opposes gay rights look (read: are) like a bunch of insecure assholes. I don't think you understand how to the average person, the conservatives opposing marriage equality look like villains. Yes, to the average person today they quite literally look like cartoon villains.

 

[mojorising]

No one cares if marriage is being redefined. Only bigots.

This is one of things I find disturbing about the PC mania surrounding this subject. If anybody voices any opposition to the gay political juggernaut they are branded 'bigots' and 'homophobes'. Why can somebody not value their cultural traditions without having pejorative terms thrown at them?

The majority now believe that gay people deserve equal acceptance into the culture at large, and that includes their relationships being recognized the same as heterosexual relationships.

But their relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. Heterosexual marriages are the basis of the family unit (even though some marriages do not result in children). Homosexual partnerships are not.

They are different things.

The attempt to gloss over differences and make it an offence to point them out reminds me of the way militant feminism operated in the 1970s. It was virtually a crime to suggest that there were differences between men and women which were anything other than social conditioning. The fact is homosexual and heterosexual partneships are substantially different things although they do share some similarities.

Many cultures throughout history have had no concept of marriage; including some that still exist today.

I am sure 99% of cultures have a cultural concept of marriage as a lifetime partnership between a man and a woman. Of course there will be exceptions but they are few and far between.

There is absolutely no evidence of this. Written history doesn't go back that far.

Well OK lets only go back as far as recorded history then and call it an even 5000 years.

This is an unsupported claim, and discredited by the existence of non-marriage based cultures

There are very few cultures that do not have a marriage concept. I think the vast majority do have the concept so the claim is strongly supported by the evidence.

marriage was neither a partnership nor lifelong. Wives were not partners ........ Similarly, these partnerships were hardly lifelong; divorce was by no means unusual or frowned upon

Whether we say life-long or not is not the argument. The argument is that marriage as a cultural phenomenon is between a man and a woman.

As for whether or not the historical cultural references are 99,9% swinging a certain way, that isn't particularly relevant

I think 99.9999% of cultural references to marriage as being between a man and a woman is relevant when trying to decide what marriage actually is and why it is that way.

But as already pointed out, humans are NOT inherently monogamous.

Monogamy vs polygamy is a different argument. This argument is about whether marriage is between a man and a woman or between any 2 people.

it is actually far more offensive to explicitly tell people that they're different (Telling people that they can't marry like all the 'normal' people isn't really any different from telling a black person they got to use the back entrance)

The race card does not work here. There is no rational basis for distinguishing between people based on race but when it comes to sexuality homosexuality and heterosexuality are substantially different things.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why should we change the definition of a tradition that dates back to prehistory?

But it doesn't. Not really.
The tradition has been adapted by many cultures over time and means various things.

Why doesnt't the gay community start its own tradition of gay unions or partnerships?

Because they want to be real people, just like real people.
Um, do you have any examples?
Is there any other point in time where a group did NOT try to get the same rights and the same labels and the same freedoms, out of respect for someone else's love of the traditional view?
Have slaves ever said "You're right, we won't call it 'freedom,' we'll just be 'not slaved blacks (for example),' because everyone expects blacks to be slaves?"
Have Protestants ever NOT demanded a right to be called a religion out of a concern for the Catholic use of the term?
Has this plan of yours got ANY connection with historical reality?

The Catholic Church has had a man/man marriage ritual in its history.

You may be able to dig up obscure references to marriages that do not conform to the normal heterosexual definition but I think 99.99999% of historical cultural references to marriage are references to the normal heterosexual definition.

Fine. Prove it.
And prove that it matters....

And why should gays accept this second-class citizen sort of standing? 'Respect' for a culture that's treated them the way it has? Why respect something so disrespectful?

Why should gays not show some respect for the culture that has recently accepted them by not meddling with the definitions of that culture's traditions?

That's not much of an answer.
Have you got any examples of this sort of thing?
Any group, anywhere, restricting themselves to match the culture's traditional views?

Prove it

How would such a thing be provable? The cultural institution of marriage as a heterosexual institution dates back to prehistory. I think its basis in the heterosexual pair-bonding of humans is self-evident.

But it's not self-evident that this is a binding reason for marriage and a good reason to restrict the term from gays.

How does that work?
And why doesn't it work for gays?

It works because marriage has an existing definition which works for menopausal women but it does not work for gays.

What about Gays with Children?
A you ignored, Neil Patrick Harris has a kid, so isn't that a good marriage?
Melissa Etheridge has a kid, so isn't that a good marriage?

Gays can start their own tradition if they want, they don't need to distort the definition of an existing one.

No distortion. That's kinda the point.
'Marriage' is already a legal term with benefits and established understandings and precedents. Giving them 'marriage' is the best way to ensure all those protections and benefits and legalities follow. Which includes laws AND policies at places that aren't governmental.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But their relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. Heterosexual marriages are the basis of the family unit (even though some marriages do not result in children). Homosexual partnerships are not.

it is actually far more offensive to explicitly tell people that they're different (Telling people that they can't marry like all the 'normal' people isn't really any different from telling a black person they got to use the back entrance)

The race card does not work here. There is no rational basis for distinguishing between people based on race but when it comes to sexuality homosexuality and heterosexuality are substantially different things.

And you wonder why people might suspect you're a bigot?

The race card does work here. People have objected to interracial marriages because it violated God's will (according to them), because interracial couples couldn't have children (according to them), and because it violated the traditional view of families (according to them). I've been told that my family's history STOPPED when i produced interracial children. The bloodline was tragically and irrevocably changed to something different when it was no longer purely white.

People resist gay marriage with many of the same arguments they used to try to resist interracial marriages.
Most of them rather clearly wrong.
The rest just weren't good enough reasons to matter.

In a 'traditional' marriage, there are men and there are women, right? That's the important thing. There are two adult humans contributing to the success of a partnership.
If we add gay couples, there's still men and there's still women, two adult humans contributing to the success of the partnership.
What they do in their bedroom is not a matter for anyone else's considerations.

 

[dystopian]

This is one of things I find disturbing about the PC mania surrounding this subject. If anybody voices any opposition to the gay political juggernaut they are branded 'bigots' and 'homophobes'. Why can somebody not value their cultural traditions without having pejorative terms thrown at them?

Because when you deny someone equality (and especially do so stubbornly, when the winds of change are obviously against you), that is the *very definition* of bigotry. It's not 'pc-mania' that causes us to call someone who opposes gay marriage a bigot, it's the dictionary.

But their relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. Heterosexual marriages are the basis of the family unit (even though some marriages do not result in children). Homosexual partnerships are not.

And still you wonder why people would call you a bigot?

Marriage is *not* the "basis" of the family unit. It makes no difference if the parents are married or not. And really, it doesn't matter all that much whether the parents are different genders either.

The attempt to gloss over differences and make it an offence to point them out reminds me of the way militant feminism operated in the 1970s. It was virtually a crime to suggest that there were differences between men and women which were anything other than social conditioning. The fact is homosexual and heterosexual partneships are substantially different things although they do share some similarities.

Impressive victim mentality you have there. You feel perfectly comfortable with discriminating against a large group of people who just want to be treated the same as anyone else; paying no mind to the fact that doing so is hugely offensive both to the members of that minority and the people (ie; the majority nowadays) who feel they deserve equality...

...but *you're* the victim because people get upset with you for it.

I am sure 99% of cultures have a cultural concept of marriage as a lifetime partnership between a man and a woman. Of course there will be exceptions but they are few and far between.

Prove it. This is not a forum that idly tolerates people pulling numbers out their ass and presenting them as objective fact. I don't care what you're "sure" of. *I'm* sure you don't know what you're talking about.

Well OK lets only go back as far as recorded history then and call it an even 5000 years.

And I already pointed out that the earliest written accounts of "marriage" are equivalent to slavery.

There are very few cultures that do not have a marriage concept. I think the vast majority do have the concept so the claim is strongly supported by the evidence.

You "think" the vast majority has the concept, but that does NOT justify the claim "strongly supported by evidence".

Whether we say life-long or not is not the argument. The argument is that marriage as a cultural phenomenon is between a man and a woman.

Moving the goalpost now. And in the same post too. First you hammer home how 99% of cultures have marriage as a life-long partnership. When that idea is destroyed, you suddenly switch and claim that that bit's not relevant.

I think 99.9999% of cultural references to marriage as being between a man and a woman is relevant when trying to decide what marriage actually is and why it is that way.

Interesting (not really) that you completely ignore the *explanation* I gave as for WHY it isn't relevant. Rather than just reiterate your belief that it's relevant, why not actually address the reasons I gave as to why it's not?

Monogamy vs polygamy is a different argument.

No it's not. You have consistently identified marriage as being between a man and a woman... at no point did you allow for the possibility of it being between a man and thirty women. If the definition you've consistently been championing is so easily changed as to suddenly allow for the latter, then there is no real justification to your claims against gay marriage.

The race card does not work here. There is no rational basis for distinguishing between people based on race but when it comes to sexuality homosexuality and heterosexuality are substantially different things.

Hahahahahahahaha... Oh wow. You really have no idea what you sound like, do you? It's *amazing* that you completely fail to understand the argument I made, and then immediately proceed to *prove* why the argument I made is relevant.

"I'm not a bigot! Honest!"
"Really? Prove it!"
"Well I don't think it's okay to treat black people differently!"
"Okay, that's pretty convincing. But what about these other peop--"
"FUCK THEM! FUCK THOSE BASTARDS! HOW DARE THEY ASK FOR EQUAL RIGHTS TO US NORMAL PEOPLE! BLACK PEOPLE AREN'T ANY DIFFERENT TO YOU OR ME, BUT *THOSE* PEOPLE?! THEY'RE DIFFERENT! THEY'RE NOT NORMAL! THEY SHOULD USE THE SIDE ENTRANCE!"
"...but you're not a bigot, right?"
"Right."