Gay marriage in Australia

[Sajara]

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.

So females are no longer smaller? They no longer have a reproductive capacity that is constrained (whatever that means)? Men are no longer physically stronger and don't want to protect their resources?

And did you seriously just call a man's wife's womb his resource?

The definition did change. Legally Keith showed that it changed in the Australian laws in 2004.

Even the tradition definition did change. You've noted the change here yourself. The woman was a resource. Nothing more. To go from a non-being to a being is a lot bigger than to go from a woman to a man.



For the sake of argument, the two lesbians chose a sperm donor at random from a sperm bank and had a child...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

This is confusing. Are you saying that if two 50 year olds got married, that has historically not been considered a marriage because there's no reproductive resource involved?

You're going to need to back that up because I don't think that's a factually accurate statement.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

This is confusing. Are you saying that if two 50 year olds got married, that has historically not been considered a marriage because there's no reproductive resource involved?

It's marriage if they are straight because their male/ female arrangement could have produced offspring in a situation not their own. Because that's natural. And we know it's natural because it's not gay. Clearly.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This is confusing. Are you saying that if two 50 year olds got married, that has historically not been considered a marriage because there's no reproductive resource involved?

It's marriage if they are straight because their male/ female arrangement could have produced offspring in a situation not their own. Because that's natural. And we know it's natural because it's not gay. Clearly.

How could it have produced offspring?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Consider Jacob and Rachel.
Jacob fell in love with Rachel on seeing her.
Then he went to her father, Laban, and contracted to work for Laban for 7 years. Laben would then GIVE Rachel to Jacob as wife, in return for his labors.

After 7 years, Laban threw a feast, but that night he actually GAVE Rachel's older sister, Leah, to Jacob. At the same time, he GAVE a servant to Leah to be Leah's servant.

Note that in both cases, the man of the house decided who belonged to whom. He did not negotiate a contract with Zilpah to be Leah's maid. There's no sign he ever asked Leah, Rachel or Zilpah about their wishes in the matter. And he certainly didn't ask Jacob.

By the Marriage Act of 1961, Jacob could then get the marriage voided because the identity of the bride was falsified. The marriage could also be voided if one of the parties was coerced into the arrangement. The fraud would also make it void. It doesn't appear to have been solemnized by an approved celebrant, or if it was, the priest did not satisfy himself about the bride's identity.

But in the Biblical story, Jacob bemoaned the fact that by consummating the marriage, he was now married to Leah. As his wages for 7 years of work.

Laban then offered to give him Rachel, too. For another 7 years' wages.
THAT marriage, the polygamous one, would be void, just from the polygamy.

This is the 'traditional' marriage you vaunt.

Notice that a WHOLE BUNCH OF SHIT went on that would not be tolerated today, either legally or as part of the view of marriage in the eyes of society.
Nothing blue in the ceremony. The 'old' was the tradition of wives as property.
The 'borrowed' was the groom
The 'new' was the face in the bed on the morning after.


Anyway, the traditional marriage is not something that really needs to be preserved, and having two grooms or two brides is nowhere near the change as having a woman's consent, or NOT TREATING THE BRIDE THE SAME WAY AS THE SLAVE!

Oh, yeah. And this example kinda disproves your idea that the purpose amarriage was to unite two families through the progeny. Laban was Jacob's mother's brother. Leah and Jacob were cousins.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It's marriage if they are straight because their male/ female arrangement could have produced offspring in a situation not their own. Because that's natural. And we know it's natural because it's not gay. Clearly.

How could it have produced offspring?

It's a property of male/ female relationships in general, and the 'correctness' value is transitive to all male/ female relationships, even those which cannot directly produce offspring themselves. Duh.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

Of course they can. A lady who lives with a lady has sexual intercourse/gets sperm from a third male party and have a baby. Or is there something in the rules about not sleeping with a third party? There´s nothing in the definition of marriage that prohibits philandering.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

As I said earlier, different societies had different names for different sorts of relationships involving sex. Some of those relationships have some legal status. Others did not.
So, I have two questions in this context:

1. What is your evidence that there was a single concept across different societies and languages that corresponds to the concept of marriage that the English word "marriage" denoted in Australia when the laws were drafted?
2. What is your evidence that the word "marriage" used in English today (in Australia) means the same as the word "marriage" used in English in Australia when the laws were drafted?

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.

Apart from the fact that you oppose the use of the name "marriage", what other differences do you want the law to make between legally recognized gay partnerships and opposite sex marriage, and why?

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.

Most homosexual couples who have children are couples of two women, and they have children from a previous relation with a man (some of them are bisexual, not gay, or they prefer women but they married a man earlier due to social pressure, etc.), or by means of assisted fertilization.
Of course, single mothers can do this too, and if gay couples are not allowed to register as two mothers - rather than one -, then the situation for the children is very unfair.
For example, suppose the biological mother dies, or is seriously ill and incapable of raising kids. Then, a blood relative of the biological mother may get legal custody, and the children who are already suffering the loss of their biological mother or her illness, will be pulled out of their homes by force, and given to people they may barely know, or even who morally condemn both women who raised them as their children.
In fact, they may even be separated from the siblings (even if not blood siblings) they grew up with.

Why would you want to ban a woman to legally adopt the children of her gay partner?
It's going to hurt a lot of children (I say a lot because that is common).

Additionally, there are cases in which gay couples (men or women) adopt children. But there is a catch: only one of them can adopt legally. The other person is there and rears the children too, but in case something happens to the legal parent (as above), again it's disaster for the children.

2 homosexuals cannot produce a child through sexual engagement.

Neither can a single woman. But she can either adopt or use artificial insemination with semen from a sperm bank. Or she can have a child with a man who leaves.
But that does not mean she can't raise children as their mother, biological or otherwise. Two women can do it too, and actually do it, regardless of legal recognition.

Is that the precedent for supporting homosexual couples adopting children?

Gay people can already adopt children. What you're banning apparently is joint adoptions, and the ban can have really bad consequences for the children raised by those gay couples without legal recognition. Or are you suggesting banning gay people from adopting?
Even so, lesbian couples would keep raising their children. Without legal recognition. Which is bad for the children for reasons explained above, and some others like the social stigma.

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.

The legal definition obviously changed. What is your evidence that there is a non-legal concept that remains across space and time and did not change?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What is your evidence that there is a non-legal concept that remains across space and time and did not change?

Probably in the same folder as the evidence that we never had same-sex marriages in the Upper Paleolithic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So what all have we got at this point?

Marriage has existed without change for tens of thousands of years.
No, it hasn't.
Marriage is about having progeny.
Not exclusively.
Marriage has been about joining two families.
Not if the marriage is of cousins.
Marriage has always been about man and woman.
Not exclusively.
Gays can't produce progeny.
Yes, they do, and they have been for a while. And even if they couldn't, marriage isn't voided if the couple are childless.
Gays are icky and most people are upset by seeing gays being gays.
Gays will still be gay in public if you have civil unions or no unions so that's no reason to bar them from marriage.
Gays are a minority.
So are interracial couples and the foundations of society weren't destroyed by legalizing them.
Gays shouldn't have children
Denying them marriage won't stop them from having kids.
Science may one day show that it's an error.
Facts not in evidence, case not proven, and it's a stupid reason to discriminate against people now.
Marriage is only about one man and one woman and always has been.
Barring all the counter examples about man and women, woman and men, man and slave, man and snake, woman and dog, woman and Eiffel Tower, and the fact that people understand exactly what you mean when you say 'gay marriage,' rather than looking at you like you said 'Gezoonden flitzerguurb.'
Sex has a purpose.
Not really. And even if it has a main function, there's no reason to think it's an exclusive function.


Did I miss anything?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Did I miss anything?

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

Not sure if this was addressed, but it was raised and is wrong on two levels.

i) The definition which would be expanded is a civil, legal definition. Civil same-sex marriage statutes tend to provide exemptions to religious institutions which provide officiants for wedding ceremonies, thus leaving the marriage traditions of those institutions untouched.

ii) It's not meddling; gay people are part part of the affected culture and not external agents. Beyond the legal issue, there is no reason gay people should be expected not to concern themselves with the traditions of their own culture. That's not meddling, but rather the same cultural growth exhibited by pretty much everyone else who made modifications beforehand. Maybe a Jewish lesbian couple cannot legally demand a rabbi perform a Gezoonden flitzerguurb ceremony, but it certainly makes sense (socially, if not theologically) if they try to evolve that aspect of their own cultural heritage and find a rabbi who is willing.

 

[Jokodo]

Yeah, the "not meddling" stuff is really strong tobacco (that's an idiomatic phrase where I live, probably doesn't work in English, probably best translates to "hard to swallow").

Meddling with your countries culture is something all of us do everyday. If I go out with a t-shirt of some obscure band, I'm "meddling with culture" - someone who hasn't heard of them might google them, or someone who has heard of them and liked might be reminded to listen to more of their stuff, or someone who hasn't heard of them and is neither inclined to check them out because I an wearing one of their t-shirts might subconsciously file them as "something to do with long-haired, goatie-wearing men whose shoes are way to smart for their otherwise rugged looks". In all of those cases, I've "meddled with culture" - I've changed the popular perception of a specific type of cultural artifact.

Not to talk of the fact that I'm "meddling with culture" everytime I mention my kid (and/or the kid's other biological parent) to anyone who didn't know about them.

The only way you can avoid meddling with culture is by staying at home at all times. Also, the pizza delivery boy you might need shouldn't see you. I'm interested how you're going to arrange that.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The only way you can avoid meddling with culture is by staying at home at all times.

That doesn't work either, because if everyone who's worried about preserving their culture stayed at home, the culture would be left at the mercy of everyone that's out there, living it. The culture would move in some direction, without your input.

 

[laughing dog]

The implicit idea behind "meddling in culture" is that culture is static - a truly frightening thought.

 

[mojorising]

What is your evidence that there is a non-legal concept that remains across space and time and did not change?

......

As I said earlier, different societies had different names for different sorts of relationships involving sex. Some of those relationships have some legal status. Others did not.
So, I have two questions in this context:

1. What is your evidence that there was a single concept across different societies and languages that corresponds to the concept of marriage that the English word "marriage" denoted in Australia when the laws were drafted?
2. What is your evidence that the word "marriage" used in English today (in Australia) means the same as the word "marriage" used in English in Australia when the laws were drafted?

I don't see the relevance of the questions. You are trying to wriggle out of a common sense definition of marriage on technicalities, which does not achieve anything from the point of view of advancing a sensible discussion.

OK so do you think the male-female pair-bonding behaviour exhibited by humans is just a social construct or do you think we are evolved to pair bond?

I think we are evolved to pair-bond. We also have 'culture' and 'traditions' with ceremonies since we are human.

It stands to reason, then, that if male-female pair-bonding is an inherent feature of being human that almost all cultures will observe a ceremony for the pair-bonding of a couple. Observation of almost all human cultures suggests that is true as we would expect. In English it is called marriage.

Most homosexual couples who have children are couples of two women, and they have children from a previous relation with a man (some of them are bisexual, not gay, or they prefer women but they married a man earlier due to social pressure, etc.), or by means of assisted fertilization.

It is really male homosexual couples being given children that I object to. Women are evolved as natural child-carers so they will provide a more natural environment. Men are also much more likely to sexually abuse a child than a woman. (I am not saying gay men in particular, although I understand that there is actually evidence to support this argument too).

Gay people can already adopt children.

I think homosexual men should not be allowed to adopt children until we understand better what causes homosexuality and also based on the higher risk of sexual abuse from males than females.

The definition which would be expanded is a civil, legal definition

It was a cultural ceremony before legal systems evolved. No it cannot be proved but it stands to reason if you believe that pair-bonding is evolved human behaviour.

It's not meddling; gay people are part part of the affected culture and not external agents.

They are a very small minority making excessive demands about changes to very long-standing and culturally important ceremonies, and doing this for political reason.

 

[mojorising]

Meddling with your countries culture is something all of us do everyday. If I go out with a t-shirt of some obscure band, I'm "meddling with culture" - someone who hasn't heard of them might google them, or someone who has heard of them and liked might be reminded to listen to more of their stuff, or someone who hasn't heard of them and is neither inclined to check them out because I an wearing one of their t-shirts might subconsciously file them as "something to do with long-haired, goatie-wearing men whose shoes are way to smart for their otherwise rugged looks". In all of those cases, I've "meddled with culture" - I've changed the popular perception of a specific type of cultural artifact.

Marriage is an ancient and primal ceremonial recognition of one the biggest steps in life.

Liking a particular rock-band is trivial fragment of transitory musical culture.

You seem to be more interested in a pseudo-intellectual exercise in trying to stand common sense on its head. This may be fun from an academic point of view but it is not much use when trying solve practical problems facing society.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't see the relevance of the questions. You are trying to wriggle out of a common sense definition of marriage on technicalities, which does not achieve anything from the point of view of advancing a sensible discussion.

Well, it's not 'common sense' if no one agrees with you.
And if you cannot support your assertions, no one has to agree with you.

You're the one claiming it's an ancient universal concept.
You've never ponied up much evidence for that, no matter how often you're challenged.

They are a very small minority making excessive demands about changes to very long-standing and culturally important ceremonies, and doing this for political reason.

You keep treating this issue as if only actually gay men are the ones supporting the change.

You're ignoring a lot of voices in order to do that.

You can't show that it's 'excessive' demands, any more than when women wanted a say in being brides was an excessive demand, or people of different colors, different religions, NO religions wanting the right were excessive demands.

You've yet to actually nail down how 'long-standing' makes any sort of difference, since there have been more changes over time than there have been elements preserved.

And you're pretending that gays are not part of the culture you so desperately want to save.


Ever been to Egypt, Mojo?
Watch out for the crocodiles.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This may be fun from an academic point of view but it is not much use when trying solve practical problems facing society.

you have not yet proven that gay marriage is, in fact, a problem facing society.

You assert, and assert, but if no one believes you at face value, what else can you show for your side?

 

[Sajara]

Except for all the couples that dont pair bond...which is why we have a 50% divorce rate and really complex family units.

And i see you've evaded a lot of people's questions once again.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It was a cultural ceremony before legal systems evolved. No it cannot be proved but it stands to reason if you believe that pair-bonding is evolved human behaviour.

What 'it'? The form of marriage we observe was and is a legal institution first and foremost. It's had various religions and rhetoric thrust into its various orifices, but the underlying nature is contractual. That older kinship traditions exist is fine, but unimportant. Chronology is unimportant. People need to legislate according to the needs of people who are alive now, and not out of some bizarre respect for people who happen to have been born (and died) centuries before there ever was a nation called Australia.

They are a very small minority making excessive demands about changes to very long-standing and culturally important ceremonies, and doing this for political reason.

I see this conversation is just an endless loop?

i) There is no singular legal or cultural institution of marriage. That's a lie on your behalf. The multitudinous definitions which do exist have been modified extensively. What you observe as marriage today is not long-standing. Within the scope of human history you've talked about, modern marriage has existed for the blink of an eye. It may be based off of things which are long-standing, but so is same-sex marriage.

ii) This change has almost no practical implications on your life (unless you are a civil marriage officiant of some sort). You do not have to redefine your own marriage or even your own definition of what true marriage is. The change does have dramatical practical benefits for same sex-couples seeking to get married. It is outlandish and obscenely hypocritical to think that you not demanding other people live according to your whims is somehow an excessive demand against you. It's even more absurd that your reasoning is not down to a matter of principles, but rather which team has more players.

The minority of people seem to think gay marriage should not be allowed in Australia, you why are you, a minority, making demands of the majority? Know your place you statistically lower frequency scum!

iii) It's not political for the people seeking the right to same-sex marriage. It's their life. It's their partner's life. For you it's political, but for them it's their future.