Gay marriage in Australia

[DrZoidberg]

Keith&Co said homosexual couples can have children but I don't understand this point as they cannot really do it by themselves. They need help from other people. I don't think they should be allowed to have children at all.

Ehe?!? Nobody can make babies all on their own. We all need help from someone. We´re all to some extent dependent on support from people outside the little couple to raise the kids. I don´t see how this is an argument?

Also... gay couples have been having kids since forever. If there is a will there´s a way. Legions of these kids have grown up and are just as well adjusted as any person. So its not like we have to speculate on the suitability of gay parents. They´re fine. Also... good luck stopping them. The human instinct to have children is very strong. If you make it illegal, these people will just do it anyway and break the law. I´m not sure how that benefits anybody exactly?

This is like the abortion issue. The abortion debate is only about whether or not people will have abortions legally or illegally. The legality of it has virtually zero impact on the number of abortions performed. This is the same. It´s pointless to try to prevent it. It will not make the world a better place.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think it is progressive. I think it is politically correct conformism.

Patayto, potahto.

Where would you draw the line? Or better yet, what would you point to as a precedent for denying them children?

We are in fairly new territory with this so a precedent is a bit difficult but the simple fact that homosexuals cannot produce children by themselves and children should not be part of a social experiment is good enough reason I would say.

How 'new' is it?
How long have kids been being raised in gay households? (When was The Birdcage written?)
Has there been an opportunity for studies to determine if there is a negative impact on the children based solely on the gender preference of the parents?

Is there any reason to suspect harm to the kids besides your presupposition that it's 'wrong' and therefore harmful? You know, any NONcircular argument for your position?

 

[mojorising]

Ehe?!? Nobody can make babies all on their own. We all need help from someone. We´re all to some extent dependent on support from people outside the little couple to raise the kids. I don´t see how this is an argument?

What are you and Keith talking about?

I am talking about the simple biology of the matter.

2 homosexuals cannot produce a child through sexual engagement.

 

[Sajara]

I do not have a church marriage but the government recognizes my marriage.
......
There are something like 27 laws (I might be way off here, but that number is popping into my mind at the moment) where the government uses the term marriage in the legal government sense to define rights for people who were joined in a civil union as I did.
......
What basis do you have to say government wise, the definition of marriage should not extend to homosexuals?

I think the cultural definition of marriage (between a man and a woman) predates the legal definition.

When the laws were drafted they just used the term marriage assuming all pair-bonding would only ever be between a man and a woman.

Later on society accepted that homosexuals would want to have legally recognised partnerships. That is OK. But a legal partnership is not a marriage because a marriage is more than just a partnership. It is the binding together of 2 families with the likely prospect that children will be produced (yes there are exceptions). We should redraft laws to accomodate partnerships that can include homosexual partnerships. But we should not redefine marriage since it has a valuable cultural heritage as binding together specifically a man and a woman.

Keith&Co said homosexual couples can have children but I don't understand this point as they cannot really do it by themselves. They need help from other people. I don't think they should be allowed to have children at all.

So...not going to answer my 4 questions? Okay, partially answered #4 here...but even still, evasion noted.

You appear to be trying to argue a point of syntax when saying that it is only the definition of the word marriage that you wouldn't want to change...but then you do a 180 about face and say that you still don't want to give homosexuals the rights to have children.

You can't have it both ways, so which is it? Is it the definition that is the issue but you are okay with them having all of the same legal rights or is it that you think homosexuals are dangerous to society? If it is the later, then you need to demonstrate why you think that is the case. So far your only reason is because you find them icky. I find your homophobia and discrimination icky. Should I be allowed to say you can't have children - scratch that, should you be legally banned from marrying someone and having children based on how I feel? What if the majority of people feel that way?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think it is progressive. I think it is politically correct conformism.

Where would you draw the line? Or better yet, what would you point to as a precedent for denying them children?

We are in fairly new territory with this so a precedent is a bit difficult but the simple fact that homosexuals cannot produce children by themselves and children should not be part of a social experiment is good enough reason I would say.

Like I said, my wife and I cannot produce children by ourselves. Should we not be allowed to have children? Yes or no?

 

[mojorising]

How long have kids been being raised in gay households? (When was The Birdcage written?)

You mean the 1996 movie with Robin Williams?

I didn't see that.

Is that the precedent for supporting homosexual couples adopting children?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am talking about the simple biology of the matter.

2 homosexuals cannot produce a child through sexual engagement.

A fact that also applies to many heterosexual couples, yet they're allowed to marry. They're allowed to adopt. They're allowed to use surrogates. They're allowed to bring kids into the marriage from previous, fertile marriages or previous, fertile relationships not necessarily recognized by the government.

So that's a fucking stupid justification for treating homosexual couples any differently, since they're not that different.

That's what we're talking about, the lack of credibility for your argument in this discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

How long have kids been being raised in gay households? (When was The Birdcage written?)

You mean the 1996 movie with Robin Williams?

No, that's a remake.
But it's about someone raised by a gay couple, one of them his biological father.

So the idea wasn't all that new when the author first explored it. It's really not new, now.

So, what does the actual history of gay couples and kids show?

 

[mojorising]

Like I said, my wife and I cannot produce children by ourselves. Should we not be allowed to have children? Yes or no?

If you are a man and a woman then why not?

That is the natural human family structure.

You appear to be trying to argue a point of syntax when saying that it is only the definition of the word marriage that you wouldn't want to change

It is not a question of syntax. The word has a definition which refers to an ancient human heterosexual tradition. You are proposing a radical change to that definition.

 

[Sajara]

I do not have a church marriage but the government recognizes my marriage.
......
There are something like 27 laws (I might be way off here, but that number is popping into my mind at the moment) where the government uses the term marriage in the legal government sense to define rights for people who were joined in a civil union as I did.
......
What basis do you have to say government wise, the definition of marriage should not extend to homosexuals?

I think the cultural definition of marriage (between a man and a woman) predates the legal definition.

When the laws were drafted they just used the term marriage assuming all pair-bonding would only ever be between a man and a woman.

Later on society accepted that homosexuals would want to have legally recognised partnerships. That is OK. But a legal partnership is not a marriage because a marriage is more than just a partnership. It is the binding together of 2 families with the likely prospect that children will be produced (yes there are exceptions). We should redraft laws to accomodate partnerships that can include homosexual partnerships. But we should not redefine marriage since it has a valuable cultural heritage as binding together specifically a man and a woman.

Keith&Co said homosexual couples can have children but I don't understand this point as they cannot really do it by themselves. They need help from other people. I don't think they should be allowed to have children at all.

Biblical marriage (and I know you are probably referring to even before then, but it is still a good example of ancient marriage laws) was often about polygamy. If a man's wife died before giving a child to the man, then the wife's sister was the next wife. Man owned woman.

Do you want to go back to the traditional view of marriage where you own a woman? Are you married? If not, then which tradition exactly? It sounds to me like tradition has changed, and often.

And as Keith already pointed out, most people today understand marriage as being a union of two consenting adults. The definition of the word has already changed whether you like it or not.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are a man and a woman then why not?

That is the natural human family structure.

You appear to be trying to argue a point of syntax when saying that it is only the definition of the word marriage that you wouldn't want to change

It is not a question of syntax. The word has a definition which refers to an ancient human heterosexual tradition. You are proposing a radical change to that definition.

So stop spouting this nonsense that it has something to do with naturally being able to have kids then. You have no legs to stand on in your excuses to discriminate.

 

[Sajara]

Biblical definitions of marriage...from a christian site no less.
http://www.christiancentury.org/blogs/archive/2015-05/what-s-biblical-definition-marriage


Maybe here's another way to look at it. Which rights specifically do you think we shouldn't give to homosexuals?
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/...ts-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

This is for the US, but I'm sure there's one for Australia that is similar. Also, I was way off...1,138 laws, not 27 heh.

 

[mojorising]

Biblical marriage (and I know you are probably referring to even before then, but it is still a good example of ancient marriage laws) was often about polygamy. If a man's wife died before giving a child to the man, then the wife's sister was the next wife. Man owned woman.

Yes, I know. I have read the Bible twice and the Koran once, just for fun, even though I am an anti-theist.

All these supposedly 'different' definitions of marriage have one thing in common:- they are between a man and a woman. Polygamy is multiple marriages.

 

[Sajara]

1973 play La Cage aux Folles

Apparently the Birdcage is based on a French play...from 42 years ago.

So what do you think...did society stop in the last 42 years?

- - - Updated - - -

Biblical marriage (and I know you are probably referring to even before then, but it is still a good example of ancient marriage laws) was often about polygamy. If a man's wife died before giving a child to the man, then the wife's sister was the next wife. Man owned woman.

Yes, I know. I have read the Bible twice and the Koran once, just for fun, even though I am an anti-theist.

All these supposedly 'different' definitions of marriage have one thing in common:- they are between a man and a woman. Polygamy is multiple marriages.

Hardly. They were all between a man and his property. In this case, the property just happened to be a female of the species.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Also, I was way off...1,138 laws, not 27 heh.

That's okay, the BIG number is not just laws, but rights and court decisions and agency policies all added up.
But that's just the federal examples.
Individual businesses have their own policies. "Civil union? I'm sorry, you'll have to wait in the lobby."
"Civil union? Did you formally adopt the child? Then you're not REALLY the parent and we can't release that data to you."

- - - Updated - - -

Hardly. They were all between a man and his property. In this case, the property just happened to be a female of the species.

Exactly. Giving the woman the right to consent, or refuse, was a far bigger change than that suggested for man-man relationships.

 

[dystopian]

Fully legalized gay marriage has been a thing in parts of this world for 15 years now. It is not 'new'; it is not an 'experiment'; the sky hasn't fallen, and it isn't going to; society hasn't collapsed and isn't going to. Gay marriage isn't going to go away in the countries that have legalized it; and gay marriage will continue to be legalized by countries that haven't already done so. So let's just leave the crazy person who thinks he's living in a different century to his bigotry and delusions, shall we? People like him no longer matter.

 

[Sajara]

Mojo,
Let's start with one of the federal examples from the link I provided.

A homosexual couple has children. If one of them dies, then the children get nothing if they are in an unrecognized union.

Is this fair to the homosexual? Is this fair to the children? Do you support this discrimination against the spouse/child? Why?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Mojo,
Let's start with one of the federal examples from the link I provided.

A homosexual couple has children. If one of them dies, then the children get nothing if they are in an unrecognized union.

Is this fair to the homosexual? Is this fair to the children? Do you support this discrimination against the spouse/child? Why?

To be fair, mojo would rather that the 1200 laws and rights and court rulings be rewritten to recognize the gay union. That's better for society than to simply redefine marriage. Redundantly.

 

[mojorising]

Exactly. Giving the woman the right to consent, or refuse, was a far bigger change than that suggested for man-man relationships.

That is not true. Females have historically been controlled by males since their reproductive capacity is a constrained resource and because men are physically stronger and want to protect their reproductive resource.

That is no longer the case but the definition of marriage did not change. The female just got more control of her half of the relationship.

Changing the definition to include male-male relationships is a far more radical change. It is no longer even the same concept I would argue.

A homosexual couple has children. If one of them dies, then the children get nothing if they are in an unrecognized union.

Is this fair to the homosexual?

How did they get children? If it was from a previous heterosexual relationship then surely regular inheritance laws would take effect? If not then the inheritance laws could be changed without redefining marriage.

 

[Sajara]

Mojo,
Let's start with one of the federal examples from the link I provided.

A homosexual couple has children. If one of them dies, then the children get nothing if they are in an unrecognized union.

Is this fair to the homosexual? Is this fair to the children? Do you support this discrimination against the spouse/child? Why?

To be fair, mojo would rather that the 1200 laws and rights and court rulings be rewritten to recognize the gay union. That's better for society than to simply redefine marriage. Redundantly.

As far as I'm concerned, it is just a word. Call it 'flowqerolljk' in the legal writing for all I care, as long as all the rights are the same. Society itself will equate it as marriage in time.

But based on mojo's words here, it isn't about the word or its definition because he doesn't want them to have the same rights either.

 

[SimpleDon]

Biblical marriage (and I know you are probably referring to even before then, but it is still a good example of ancient marriage laws) was often about polygamy. If a man's wife died before giving a child to the man, then the wife's sister was the next wife. Man owned woman.

Yes, I know. I have read the Bible twice and the Koran once, just for fun, even though I am an anti-theist.

All these supposedly 'different' definitions of marriage have one thing in common:- they are between a man and a woman. Polygamy is multiple marriages.

So you consider polygamy to be a valid form of marriage then? Because it is between a man and multiple women (polygyny) or between a woman and multiple men (polyandry).

 

[dystopian]

That is not true. Females have historically been controlled by males since their reproductive capacity is a constrained resource and because men are physically stronger and want to protect their reproductive resource.

That is no longer the case but the definition of marriage did not change. The female just got more control of her half of the relationship.

Except it was already, repeatedly, explained to you that historically; especially in the ancient world; wives were legally acquired in almost the exact same way as slaves. Such legal rules *define* the term "wife", and therefore the term "marriage". Even if "man/woman" were legally part of the definition... it obviously was not ever the SOLE part of said definition. Since wives are no longer legally treated as defacto slaves; the definition of marriage HAS changed.

Indeed, since the bulk of marriage's definition has always dealt with legal rights and duties, changing it so that a wife is not equivalent to a slave and has actual rights in the relationship is a far greater change in definition than simply changing the part where it says "man/woman" to "person/person". If you don't agree with this, you don't understand basic math.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That is no longer the case but the definition of marriage did not change. The female just got more control of her half of the relationship.

That, then, would be a major change to how people understood the traditional meaning of a marriage.
When a woman said, "I married him" then, people assumed this meant that he or his parents negotiated with the woman's parents for her, for the purpose of joining household.
NOW, we tend not to think of her parents being involved with the decision.

Changing the definition to include male-male relationships is a far more radical change. It is no longer even the same concept I would argue.

And you'd be wrong.
They have the same definitions, the same legal rights, the Marriage Act that says a marriage is void if there is coercion or force or trickery used would still apply.... They have the same rights and benefits for the purpose of employment, insurance, housing, adoption, power of attorney, medical proxy....

Look over the 1961 version of the marriage act and try to find what no longer applies if the 2004 amendment is overturned. What's different about a lesbian marriage from a straight marriage in that Act?

Find something that has to change in the consideration of a same-sex marriage.

I dare you.