Gay marriage in Australia

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I was going to become a marriage commissioner so when this thread hits one hundred pages, I could celebrate by officiating a same-sex marriage ceremony. As it turns out, there are no marriage commissioner vacancies. Also, the very fact that this was my motive for taking the position precludes me seeing as the job has a maturity requirement.

 

[Jokodo]

This is a classic straw man argument. My position is that I support homosexual men having civil partnerships. Their desire to pursue committed and legally recognised relationships is quite reasonable.

I think marriage has a traditional definition and there is no harm in keeping it out of posterity (and some other practical legal reasons).

The legal definition of marriage in Australia has been amended a mere 11 years ago for the express purpose of keeping gays out.

The legal needs of homosexuals can be served through other legal means.

Just like women's need for political representation could be served by other means than letting them vote for the general assembly. In both cases, that'd be discrimination.

Keith says this is too much legal effort but how much effort is it to make amendments to selected bits of legislation stating that all references to marriage/spouse etc. also includes homosexual parters.

Depends on how many laws and regulations are there that make references to marriage/spouse? Rough guess: 1348. And since you explicitly want to withhold some rights and privileges from gay couples, you can't just declare in the preamble that *all* references should be interpreted as referring to both, you'll have to make it explicit each time (and probably have a debate whether to include that privilege every other time).

The straw man is you turning this into a position of me wanting to 'ban' gay marriage. It does not exist in Australia so I am not banning anything.

I'm guessing she means the "majority" you claim to speak for. Whether you think it's a worldwide majority or an Australian majority (her country).

Yes, I figured it out. The Location is Victoria so I am guessing the 'us' is aussies.

Mojo YOU MUST ANSWER THIS or you're just a tool.

I have pointed out the glaringly obvious difference of heterosexual marriage being an example of the natural order of things. i.e. a pair bonding of the complementary sexes: male and female.

Sexes don't marry, individuals do. Individuals that may or may not engage in PIV sex or even be unable to do so, individuals that may or may not plan on raising kids together, individuals that may or may not have complementary character traits. So what's the demarcation line that puts all heterosexual couples on one side and same-sex couples on the other, and from what part of the 1961 marriage act does it follow that that line should have legal significance?

Homosexual partnerships are an adequate interim legal structure to create while we are in the process of trying to understand more about the nature of homosexuality.

"moral code"??? You have a very strange definition of "moral", but that's a topic for a different thread.

Sticking with your own kind used to be a valid moral code since tribalism is part of our evolutionary make-up. The globalised nature of our modern environment has seen this moral code fall by the wayside and become no longer relevant and indeed even immoral.

The number of Australians who favor gay marriage bans outnumbers the population of Denmark, but not Kyrgyzstan.

Most of these people are just being swept along in a froth of shallow populism for the fizzy flavour of the month political cause without stopping to reflect on the consequences.

The consequences being?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Pathetic that you think playing little word games is appropriate

It is you who are playing word games by twisting the definition of the word 'ban' to make my position sound less reasonable.

What twist?
YOu specifically don't want gays to be able to be married.
You literally want them to invent a whole new legal status JUST to keep the word 'marriage' away from their unions.

No twist, you're in the group that wants to ban 'same-sex marriage

Let me state again that I am in favour of legal support for homosexual partnerships and that these partnerships be recognised as equivalent to marriage in many circumstances.

State it all you want, it doesn't change the result. You want to play legal keep-away with your tradition of marriage.

And once more, you have fuck-all to show for the actual differences that should have a legal consequence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Keith says this is too much legal effort but how much effort is it to make amendments to selected bits of legislation stating that all references to marriage/spouse etc. also includes homosexual parters.

Well, first you'd have to create samesex partnerships in the first place. What they are, who gets to have them, what rights those partners have. You'd save some time by just copying the Marriage Act, but for your purposes, you'd have to specify which rights they do NOT have.
I think that'd take a significant amount of government's time, what with some people wanting the SSP's to fully match heterosexual marriage, and some people not wanting them to exist at all.

Then, since SSP's and TM's are not equal in all respect, you need to specify the differences and the overlaps in every single piece of legislation. If it says 'married' you have to add or specifically exclude SSP. You don't want lawsuits later claiming that the writing of the SSP act made it equivalent to marriage in this case.

If it says 'spouse' you need to add or specifically exclude 'partners.'

You need to add partners to every form for 'relationship to the accused' and wherever else one finds spouse.

And all of this effort is unnecessary, at least until you find some justification for why they cannot just update the Marriage Act to include SSP's as marriages. You claim it's unnatural, but then, so is clothing.
So is surgery.

How many Australians are able to enter marriage only because unnatural things made that possible?

 

[RavenSky]

I have pointed out the glaringly obvious difference of heterosexual marriage being an example of the natural order of things. i.e. a pair bonding of the complementary sexes: male and female.

You have not pointed out any valid difference or objection for same-sex marriage. Your opinion that heterosexual "pair bonding of the complimentary sexes" is some sort of factual basis for marriage is incorrect.

"moral code"??? You have a very strange definition of "moral", but that's a topic for a different thread.

Sticking with your own kind used to be a valid moral code since tribalism is part of our evolutionary make-up. The globalised nature of our modern environment has seen this moral code fall by the wayside and become no longer relevant and indeed even immoral.

interesting that you harp on the semantics (which you are still wrong on) and ignore everything else I've said, including a long post of societies that allowed/accepted same-sex marriage throughout history.

The number of Australians who favor gay marriage bans outnumbers the population of Denmark, but not Kyrgyzstan.

Most of these people are just being swept along in a froth of shallow populism for the fizzy flavour of the month political cause without stopping to reflect on the consequences.

What consequences? Specify them clearly.

 

[RavenSky]

Pathetic that you think playing little word games is appropriate

It is you who are playing word games by twisting the definition of the word 'ban' to make my position sound less reasonable.

Let me state again that I am in favour of legal support for homosexual partnerships and that these partnerships be recognised as equivalent to marriage in many circumstances.

"equivalent to marriage" is not "marriage" and you do not want to allow gay men to "marry" therefore you want to BAN "marriage" to them. It is your actual position that is unreasonable (& totally irrational), not Rhea's choice of word for your stated position.

It is not necessary to redefine marriage to achieve these outcomes.

It is not necessary to redefine marriage to allow same-sex marriage either.

Children have a right to as natural an environment as is possible when they are adopted and should not be the subject of a social experiment while we are still in the process of discovering the environmental and/or biological causes of homosexuality.

there is no "fitness to have/raise children" test before the marriage license is issued. Maybe there should be for heterosexual couples, but there is not so again - you have failed to present any factual reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The number of Australians who favor gay marriage bans outnumbers the population of Denmark, but not Kyrgyzstan.

Most of these people are just being swept along in a froth of shallow populism for the fizzy flavour of the month political cause without stopping to reflect on the consequences.

Oh, hey!
What difference does that make? (I mean, aside from the fact you're just projecting this onto the opinion polls because of some fantasy that the majority is 'really' on your side....)

Seriously, what law has ever been revoked based on the reason that it was determined that the voters weren't thinking things through? Voters have changed their minds from time to time. But that's always been new laws written or amendments made. No law has been less lawful because it was a fad at the time it was legislated....

if the majority wants to allow gay marriage, for whatever reason, that means the majority wants to allow gay marriage. Slurs on their motivations don't change the numbers.


OH! I GOT IT! Use 'they weren't thinking the reasons through' as a justification to revoke the recent amendment to the Australian Marriage Act that specifically prevented same-sex marriage! It was all just unthinking bigotry, repeal, and carry on with a more rational legal basis!

 

[Rhea]

Pathetic that you think playing little word games is appropriate

It is you who are playing word games by twisting the definition of the word 'ban' to make my position sound less reasonable.

Yes or no: You want gays to be able to "marry"? Yes or no. You answer has been NO NO NO!!! Hence you want to DENY them marriage, i.e. BAN them from it.

Let me state again that I am in favour of legal support for homosexual partnerships and that these partnerships be recognised as equivalent to marriage in many circumstances.

"equivalent" You have refused to answer the questions about history and "separate but equal". IT'S A FAILURE. Address that. Show me a society that did "separate but equal" and had ACTUAL equality. NONE. People DIED in America to stop that bigoted bullshit excuse. It is NOT equivalent. It's pathetic for you to pretend the entire "separate-but-equal" oppression never happened in America. Why don't you write Ruby Bridges a letter and ask her whether she thinks it was a worthwhile fight?

"many" In other words, your TRUE intent is that it isn't even equivalent. What an utter lying betrayal. Jesus, you think we haven't noticed after all these pages? You've said it again and again and again. You claim that you're fully fair (*buulshit*!!!) and then claim in the same breath your full intention to NOT make it equivalent. Stop lying to yourself, stop lying to us. You have NO intention to make it equivalent. You want to DENY marriage rights - as many as you can.

It is not necessary to redefine marriage to achieve these outcomes.

So look up your own history in Australia. Is Jokodo right? Did you all REDEFINE marriage 11 years ago to EXCLUDE gays? You hypocrite. Just change it BACK, shall you?

But even if you hadn't decided hate was more important than truth and lied about your own country’s marriage history, no you don’t have to “redefine” anything. Marriage delivers certain legal protections of basic rights. No change required. No. Change. Required.

The impetus to do so is primarily borne of a political desire not a practical need.

Oh? How do you twist that into your reality? It is a PRACTICAL NEED that parents be able to legally protect their children. You want to deny that from homosexuals. You Bastard. You’d rather have kids stripped from their families for YOUR political gain. I KNOW kids of homosexual families. I know their families. You are a monster for even considering stripping them away. I’d like to see you look into those kids’ eyes and tell them you think they should be removed from their homes if one parent dies.

This is YOUR political desire – THEIR need.

Heterosexual pair-bonding represents the natural order.

No it fucking doesn’t, as has been shown to you. In humans, in other animals, homosexuality is normal and common. More people are homosexuals than are Jews in Australia. Being homosexual is MORE NORMAL than being Jewish. More people are homosexual than those who can’t read in Australia. It is MORE NORMAL to be homosexual than to not read.

This shallow and baseless claim of yours – for which you have shown zero data, because there is none – is merely your false excuse for your hate. A made-up reason to DENY marriage to your fellow citizens out of hate and fear.

Homosexual pair-bonding desire is a reality of the human condition but we do not understand the cause of this anomaly.

Yes we do understand it! We have THOUSANDS of years of data. It’s cause is irrelevant (just as the cause of left-handedness is irrelevant, just as the cause of religiosity is irrelevant) – it exists and the people who are homosexual are good friends, neighbors co-workers, parents and grandparents.

Children have a right to as natural an environment as is possible when they are adopted

“Natural” NATURAL!? Like being cared for by people who love them? You haven’t shown any data that homosexual parents are either unnatural OR detrimental. You haven’t shown this because it’s a bullshit lie that the actual data refutes. And you just make up another hateful statement to DENY marriage rights to your fellow citizens because you don’t like who they choose as spouses.

and should not be the subject of a social experiment while we are still in the process of discovering the environmental and/or biological causes of homosexuality.

We don’t need to “discover the cause” of homosexuality. We already know that it does no harm and homosexuals make good friends, neighbors co-workers, parents and grandparents. Your efforts to say they don’t are just small-minded hate.

 

[mojorising]

You have NO intention to make it equivalent.

That is true. I don't think they are deserving of exactly equal recognition. I think 90% equal is about right. I think homosexuality is a generously tolerated sexual aberration. It is not worthy of recognition in exactly the same light as heterosexuality but we largely accept it in most spheres of life now. I don't for example think there is any grounds for discriminating against homosexuals when selecting job candidates. When it comes to prickly subjects such as public sexual expression and child adoption I think that is where I would start to classify homosexuality differently.

It is a PRACTICAL NEED that parents be able to legally protect their children. You want to deny that from homosexuals.

If they are adopted then they are not 'their' children. But that would not happen if the legal recognition of homosexuality was kept separate. Of course there will be situations where homosexuals will end up having custody of children, for example where they use surrogacy. I don't think this can be prevented but the state should not do anything to promote such situations arising.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think 90% equal is about right.

Geez, why not just make it 3/5ths so your position is clearer?

If they are adopted then they are not 'their' children.

That's a horrific thing to say and a deplorable slight to every adoptive family out there.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think homosexuality is a generously tolerated sexual aberration.

You think this.
You haven't yet shown this to be true. So the legal impact would be....zip, nada, shit.

It is a PRACTICAL NEED that parents be able to legally protect their children. You want to deny that from homosexuals.

If they are adopted then they are not 'their' children.

Not true. That's what adoption means, making the children 'our' children.
You're twisting definitions again, to support your bigotry.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's a horrific thing to say and a deplorable slight to every adoptive family out there.

My grandma used to do that.

"My son-in-law has two children, and two adopted children."
"No, grandma, your SIL has four children."

It's no wonder that branch of the family didn't come to her funeral.

But to be fair, I think mojo only has this issue with gay couple adoption, an artificial distinction to protect his separation fantasy. If he sees a straight couple with an adopted kid, he probably doesn't begin to wonder if it's 'their' child or not.

 

[Keith&Co.]

back in May, mojo, I asked:

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

You said:

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

So, apparently, we can change PARTS of the 'cultural definition' without redefining it. Or at least, it's okay with YOU to change parts. You never really did establish that the above is the one and only definition of marriage in human cultures.

But anyway, let's look at this. You've said:
'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
and:
marriage is a lifetime partnership between a man and a woman.

Well, you admit that marriage doesn't HAVE to include progeny. Infertile men and women marrying do not change the tradition, although you've been very clear that this is crucial to the definition of 'traditional marriage.'

I also notice that you're not demanding an end to divorce. So apparently we can change the 'lifetime' partnership part of 'traditional marriages' without actually redefining the tradition.

So why can't we change some other words?

'Marriage' is a lifetime partnership, the pair-bonding of a man and a woman with the traditional expectation that this binds 2 families together genetically through progeny .

Or 'Marriage' is a lifetime partnership, the pair-bonding of a woman and a woman with the traditional expectation that this binds 2 families together genetically through progeny .

Why are those words crucial to 'redefining' marriage, if 'lifetime' and 'through progeny' are not?
How do you justify the distinction between what is and isn't crucial to the definition of the tradition?

 

[Rhea]

back in May, mojo, I asked:

You said:

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

So, apparently, we can change PARTS of the 'cultural definition' without redefining it. Or at least, it's okay with YOU to change parts. You never really did establish that the above is the one and only definition of marriage in human cultures.

But anyway, let's look at this. You've said:
'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
and:
marriage is a lifetime partnership between a man and a woman.

Well, you admit that marriage doesn't HAVE to include progeny. Infertile men and women marrying do not change the tradition, although you've been very clear that this is crucial to the definition of 'traditional marriage.'

I also notice that you're not demanding an end to divorce. So apparently we can change the 'lifetime' partnership part of 'traditional marriages' without actually redefining the tradition.

So why can't we change some other words?

'Marriage' is a lifetime partnership, the pair-bonding of a man and a woman with the traditional expectation that this binds 2 families together genetically through progeny .

Or 'Marriage' is a lifetime partnership, the pair-bonding of a woman and a woman with the traditional expectation that this binds 2 families together genetically through progeny .

Why are those words crucial to 'redefining' marriage, if 'lifetime' and 'through progeny' are not?
How do you justify the distinction between what is and isn't crucial to the definition of the tradition?

Why not
'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

So simple. Like the Jitterbug.

 

[Rhea]

That is true. I don't think they are deserving of exactly equal recognition. I think 90% equal is about right. I think homosexuality is a generously tolerated sexual aberration. It is not worthy of recognition in exactly the same light as heterosexuality but we largely accept it in most spheres of life now. I don't for example think there is any grounds for discriminating against homosexuals when selecting job candidates. When it comes to prickly subjects such as public sexual expression and child adoption I think that is where I would start to classify homosexuality differently.

You think You think You think You think You think
Meanwhile SEVENTY TWO PERCENT of your country thinks differently.
You're the freak, here. You should remember that.

It is a PRACTICAL NEED that parents be able to legally protect their children. You want to deny that from homosexuals.

If they are adopted then they are not 'their' children. But that would not happen if the legal recognition of homosexuality was kept separate. Of course there will be situations where homosexuals will end up having custody of children, for example where they use surrogacy. I don't think this can be prevented but the state should not do anything to promote such situations arising.

Yes, this is a vile thing to say about every adoptive child on the planet. "You don't have parents. Not 'your' parents."
What a hateful cave you live in.

And for the lesbian couple where one is impregnated by rape? You think that child should be torn from her other mother if the birth mother dies? Given away to another family just to appease YOU? Try asking the child, you monster.

And for the couple where one partner has a child from a previous marriage? Possibly widowed, possibly abandoned. That parent finally comes out as gay, or is perhaps bi and chooses their next partner who is same-sex. Two men marry and one of them is a dad with sole custody. They raise those kids, and AGAIN, you don't want those kids to have the protections to stay with their other dad? Given away to another family just to appease YOU? Try asking the child, you monster.

Are you one of those people who approved of aboriginal children torn from the arms of their mothers because it was "better for them" to be raised by whites? IT'S THE SAME THING. One asshole thinking they should tear apart a family because they have a vicious selfish streak, and children suffering.

Or how about the kids adopted by gays - especially the special needs ones - not a big rush of hetero families standing in line waiting, so you think these children should have NO family rather than a gay one? No family just to appease YOU? Try asking the child, you monster.


In the end, this is just you with a personal freak-out trying to destroy the lives of children that aren't yours to appease your fetish.
It's vile.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why not
'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

Well, no reason _I_ can see....

 

[Rhea]

And really, ti doesn't "bind two families" any more either. Think how many parents-in-law are not really "bound" to each other. Really just a new family is started.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And really, ti doesn't "bind two families" any more either. Think how many parents-in-law are not really "bound" to each other. Really just a new family is started.

True. By mojo's definition, two orphans getting married, or two people who were adopted, would be redefining his 'traditional view of marriage.' Missed that.

 

[bilby]

The Australian prohibition on same sex marriage is a long tradition, stretching all the way back to the 16th August 2004, the date of assent of the Commonwealth Marriage Amendment Act (2004). This is a very short act indeed; its full text can be found at https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004A01361/Html/Text.

Simply repealing that very minor amendment would probably be sufficient to allow equality.

In the meantime, I am still waiting for that list of consequences.

They are apparently important; but for some reason, mojorising has not yet been able to produce a list of them - or even an example of the most serious one(s).

Come on, mojo; your whole argument rests on this. Give us a list of the dire consequences that will occur if gays tie the knot.

 

[Jayjay]

This is a classic straw man argument. My position is that I support homosexual men having civil partnerships. Their desire to pursue committed and legally recognised relationships is quite reasonable.

I think marriage has a traditional definition and there is no harm in keeping it out of posterity (and some other practical legal reasons).

The legal needs of homosexuals can be served through other legal means.

Keith says this is too much legal effort but how much effort is it to make amendments to selected bits of legislation stating that all references to marriage/spouse etc. also includes homosexual parters.

The straw man is you turning this into a position of me wanting to 'ban' gay marriage. It does not exist in Australia so I am not banning anything.

LOL, nice try.

No. It's not a straw man.
You want to DENY marriage to human adults.

Some people used to like the language, "do we let them get married?" BUt that's not the real question, is it. "letting" "THEM" do something isn't what you have the power to do. Marriage is a right that is available to all adults in Australia. You want to DENY someone a RIGHT to choose their spouse.

That's probably true. But to play the devil's advocate, why should everyone have a right to choose their spouse? Why should anyone? Why is it a "right" at all?

As a thought experiment, what about marriages between close relatives or siblings? Australian law likewise "bans" marriage between people who have direct ancestry and siblings, biological or adoptive. Do you think that's a fair limitation on the definition of marriage? And if so, how would you justify this limitation? Is it because incest is "icky"? Is it because children conceived have higher probability of genetic diseases? Is it because of the disparate power relationship between relatives? Is it because doesn't affect as many people as ban on gay marriage? I think that if you break down each of the objections that you migth have (or that you might not, since I have no idea if you would approve of incestuous marriages), it becomes very similar to the objections that mojorising has against gay marriage.

Personally, I think all marriage should be "banned" and treated solely as a contractual matter. But since I'm in a hopeless minority with my opinion on marriage, I'm not losing sleep over some people being slightly less advantaged in this regard.