Gay marriage in Australia

[Rhea]

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?

In America it would fall under "pursuit of happiness" I suppose. I think the state has an interest in that partnered people are more likely to help each other when down and not need government assistance.

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.

I think the problems of genetic liability and power imbalance are real.
However, modern science can mitigate most of the genetic issues (screening, etc) and power imbalance can be mitigated with other social structures (and exists in many "approved" marriages already).

In general I don't actually have a problem with incestuous marriages. I would find it to extremely icky to be in one, but have no good reason in modern society to ban them.

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

I agree with this, too. A "domestic partnership" aka marriage is a legal structure that benefits society between many types of couples including siblings, non-romantic partners (elderly widows, e.g.) and elderly parent with caretaker child. It's a system that protects assets, caregiving and decision making. I am for it and have no problem calling it "marriage" and also have no problem with a second name "domestic partnership" as a nickname of sorts for marriages where the partners wish for some reason to make it clear that they are not intimate. But you don't need a separate structure. Just "get married" and then use the term "domestic partnership" whenever you want to.

 

[mojorising]

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.

Total nonsense. The original statement made the provocative assumption that 2 homosexual men could have an adopted child. If the appropriate legal distinctions were in place then this could not happen. Maybe I worded the response more provocatively than was necessary but you asked for it with the phrasing of your original point:-

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

The Australian prohibition on same sex marriage is a long tradition, stretching all the way back to the 16th August 2004

A wild misrepresentation of the actual reality of the situation. The wording was only made explicit when it became apparent that there was a risk of the commonly understood definition being abused due to vagueness. But don't let the obvious reality of the situation get in the way of a chance to score a few baseless argumentational points.

 

[bilby]

Total nonsense. The original statement made the provocative assumption that 2 homosexual men could have an adopted child.

That's not a "provocative assumption"; it is a fact of law. Right now, there are such families in at least three states (NSW, WA and TAS) and in the ACT. (In VIC and QLD, joint adoption by homosexual couples is still not allowed, but one of the pair may adopt as an individual; only SA and the NT require adoptive parents to be an opposite-sex couple).

If the appropriate legal distinctions were in place then this could not happen.

The law on adoption is independent of the Marriage Act; even in SA, couples seeking to adopt a child need not be married.

Maybe I worded the response more provocatively than was necessary but you asked for it with the phrasing of your original point.

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

The Australian prohibition on same sex marriage is a long tradition, stretching all the way back to the 16th August 2004

A wild misrepresentation of the actual reality of the situation. The wording was only made explicit when it became apparent that there was a risk of the commonly understood definition being abused due to vagueness. But don't let the obvious reality of the situation get in the way of a chance to score a few baseless argumentational points.

Fair enough - if you don't like baseless argumentational points, then you will be planning to provide us with that list of the severe consequences that you (so far, baselessly) claim will occur should homosexuals marry. Or perhaps just one or two of the most severe consequences.

Given that these supposed consequences form the core of your objection, and given how vehement your objection is, presumably the consequences themselves are quite dire. So, what, exactly, are those consequences?

I plan to marry in Australia in thirteen months time. How will my marriage, or anything else in my life, be affected if a gay couple get married in Australia at the same time? Or if thousands of gay couples get married all across Australia between now and then?

How will I even know about, much less suffer 'consequences' from, these other weddings?

 

[TSwizzle]

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.

Patience grasshopper. All you need is the proper celeb behind the idea and it will surely come to pass.

 

[Jokodo]

Total nonsense. The original statement made the provocative assumption that 2 homosexual men could have an adopted child. If the appropriate legal distinctions were in place then this could not happen. Maybe I worded the response more provocatively than was necessary but you asked for it with the phrasing of your original point:-

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

If a bisexual man and father of a child gets widowed and starts a new relationship with a man, should his new partner be allowed to adopt the child, without the biological father giving it up? Why not? Which of the alternatives is better, for the child? Forcing the biological father to stay single or re-marry a woman he doesn't love to grant the child a "natural" environment? Taking away the child and giving it to the mother's closest living relatives, who may be virtual strangers and may not even be pleased about the burden? Letting the two men live together, but not granting any legal status to the relationship between the child, so that in case the biological father is hospitalised the kid has to be given to strangers again?

What about a female same-sex couple where one of the women gets pregnant sleeping with a man (with or without intent, with or without prior approvement of the other partner as long as they decide they want to raise the kid together after the fact)? Let's, for the sake of the argument, assume that the biological father is happy to get off the hook and doesn't try to raise claims to become the kid's social father. Should the biolgoical grandparents who may live in another state have priority over the other woman who lives with the child and interacts more with them than any other adult except maybe the biological mother herself when it comes to making decisions for the child when the mother cannot be contacted? Do you think that's the best possible outcome for the child?

The Australian prohibition on same sex marriage is a long tradition, stretching all the way back to the 16th August 2004

A wild misrepresentation of the actual reality of the situation. The wording was only made explicit when it became apparent that there was a risk of the commonly understood definition being abused due to vagueness. But don't let the obvious reality of the situation get in the way of a chance to score a few baseless argumentational points.

The wording was made explicit because it became clear that the prior definition did not preclude same-sex marriages, nor does such a ban follow from anything in the marriage act. The purpose and function of marriage is such that it applies equally to same sex and different sex couples, and in a nominally post-sexist society is in inconsistent to make such a distinction.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Total nonsense. The original statement made the provocative assumption that 2 homosexual men could have an adopted child.

More of an 'observation' than 'a provocative assumption.'

If the appropriate legal distinctions were in place then this could not happen.

Why should we think that the legal situation is inappropriate?

The Australian prohibition on same sex marriage is a long tradition, stretching all the way back to the 16th August 2004

A wild misrepresentation of the actual reality of the situation.

Interesting bitch from someone who claims that the marriage tradition goes back tens of thousands of years. At least Bilby can point to some documentation for his position on that. Your evidence....?

 

[mojorising]

If a bisexual man and father of a child gets widowed...........

Of course homosexuals will end up with custody of children in some circumstances. I just don't think the state should support such arrangements through adoption.

I am especially talking about homosexual men here. I don't think 2 lesbian mums is such a bad situation especially if the kid is male.

If I had a son and he had to be put up for adoption because I was handicapped in an accident I would 100% not want him to be placed with 2 homosexual men.

Is my desire reasonable or not reasonable?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If a bisexual man and father of a child gets widowed...........

Of course homosexuals will end up with custody of ildren in some circumstances. I just don't think the state should support such arrangements through adoption.

So, SOME will have the right, why not all?

I am especially talking about homosexual men here.

Yeah, mojo, we noticed.

If I had a son and he had to be put up for adoption because I was handicapped in an accident I would 100% not want him to be placed with 2 homosexual men.

That's you and your subjective homophobia, mojo.
You've yet to give a reason for the state to legislate such a fear.

Is my desire reasonable or not reasonable?

It doesn't sound reasonable.

Because, you know, we keep ASKING you for the reasons. Specifically inviting you to share the reasons behind your reasoning for what you claim is a reasonable position.

You assert differences, but offer nothing to support the claim.

You make distinctions between gay male couples and straight couples that aren't really distinctions.

So, no, not reasonable. Or at least, you've yet to do the work to convince anyone that it is reasonable.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If I had a son and he had to be put up for adoption because I was handicapped in an accident I would 100% not want him to be placed with 2 homosexual men.

Hey, if we're making shit up, what if your kid was handicapped in the same accident?
What if your son was now a 'special needs' child in the adoption process? Not too many couples go out on a limb for one of those kids.

If healthy, straight couples were only looking for healthy kids to adopt, would you prefer that he just grow up as a ward of the state in the state's care, rather than be placed with a loving gay couple that wanted to take care of him?

Which condition would be better for the child? Parents or orphan-for-life?

 

[mojorising]

I would go for the homosexual men in that situation because I am not a homophobe. (i.e. my fear is rational not irrational)

There are many other hypothetical adoption choices you could offer (e.g. heterosexual trailer trash or 2 homosexual men who are career high-flyers) where I would still pick the the 2 homosexual men. But all other things being equal I would have a strong preference for not 2 homosexual men.

 

[Rhea]

I would go for the homosexual men in that situation because I am not a homophobe. (i.e. my fear is rational not irrational)

There are many other hypothetical adoption choices you could offer (e.g. heterosexual trailer trash or 2 homosexual men who are career high-flyers) where I would still pick the the 2 homosexual men. But all other things being equal I would have a strong preference for not 2 homosexual men.

But you can't go for the two men in that situation, because you banned it before it occurred to you that that situation might exist TO YOU ONE DAY. You've already banned it for kids already in that situation. You've said so again and again in this thread that you want to (continue the) ban on gay adoptions.

So, too bad, so sad, your kid gets to be a ward of the state because when it was OTHER kids, you banned it.

 

[Jokodo]

If a bisexual man and father of a child gets widowed...........

Of course homosexuals will end up with custody of children in some circumstances. I just don't think the state should support such arrangements through adoption.

Could you discuss the specific scenario I presented? Should it be possible for the biological father's male partner to adopt the child? If not, how is banning this not clearly, obviously, harming the child?

I am especially talking about homosexual men here. I don't think 2 lesbian mums is such a bad situation especially if the kid is male.

If I had a son and he had to be put up for adoption because I was handicapped in an accident I would 100% not want him to be placed with 2 homosexual men.

Is my desire reasonable or not reasonable?

Not reasonable. Next question?

 

[Jokodo]

I would go for the homosexual men in that situation because I am not a homophobe. (i.e. my fear is rational not irrational)

There are many other hypothetical adoption choices you could offer (e.g. heterosexual trailer trash or 2 homosexual men who are career high-flyers) where I would still pick the the 2 homosexual men. <snip>

Good on you, but as Rhea said, under the legislation you're defending, that'd be an impossibility.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I would go for the homosexual men in that situation because I am not a homophobe.

Then why did you "100% not want" that?
What's your non-homophobic, perfectly rational reasoning? What would happen to your child that you would want to prevent?

 

[bilby]

This has nothing to do with the question of marriage at all. The Commonwealth Marriage Act 1965 makes no mention of adoption, which is a State, not a Commonwealth, responsibility. The state adoption laws vary; only in South Australia is adoption currently limited to opposite sex couples.

Homosexual couples already can, and have, adopted children in three states, and in the ACT. Nothing bad happened. I'm struggling to imagine how, if those adoptive parents were married, something - anything - bad would necessarily happen.

The whole adoption question is irrelevant to the marriage debate in Australia, due to the simple fact that those two activities are legally completely separate - indeed they do not even fall into the purview of the same tier of government.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, mojo's opposition to gay marriage is (apparently) baseless AND useless in accomplishing his stated goal.

But i still bet we can make it to 100 pages for this baseless, pointless thread!

 

[mojorising]

I would go for the homosexual men in that situation because I am not a homophobe.

Then why did you "100% not want" that?
What's your non-homophobic, perfectly rational reasoning? What would happen to your child that you would want to prevent?

OK 100% was an overstatement since there are extreme situations when it would be the better of two weevils.

I am pretty sure that a substantial majority of the male population would agree with me when I say that if their baby son had to be put up for adoption they would have a strong preference that he not be placed with 2 homosexual men except in those extreme hypothetical circumstances I outlined.

 

[Rhea]

Pretty sure you're dead wrong. My evidence is the 72% support for gay marriage with no. caveats. Your evidence?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am pretty sure that a substantial majority of the male population

Yeah, well, you've kinda shot your load on that argument basis, mojo. Your opinion-poll fantasies have little to do with the legislation.

 

[Rhea]

Then why did you "100% not want" that?
What's your non-homophobic, perfectly rational reasoning? What would happen to your child that you would want to prevent?

OK 100% was an overstatement since there are extreme situations when it would be the better of two weevils.

Ok, but seriously, either it's 100% OR YOU DON'T PASS THAT LAW.
You need to make up your mind.


Have you just changed from the position you have held throughout this ENTIRE thread?
You said, you wanted the LAW to state that gays could not have real marriages AND that they should not be able to adopt children together.

Have you finally realized that this is cruel folly, now that you consider it in the context of your own personal circumstances?

Or are you saying, "yeah, I'd rather have my orphaned disabled kid with 2 gay parents than a ward of that state BUT I'm willing to deny my kid that safety net by passing a law anyway that prohibits it. 'Cause I just hate the gays that much."

...



And this hypothetical son of yours - what if he is gay? Do you really want to look him in the eye and say, I do NOT want you and your partner to be able to marry and adopt children together? This is YOUR son, now. He's gay. His boyfriend (his partner, the one he loves and wants to build a future with) has a son, they want to marry and have your son adopt that son so that firm legal protections are in place for every eventuality in life. This is YOUR gay son, now, remember. He wants to marry.

Yes or no. You still against gay marriage? You still against gay adoption?