Marriage: Not for gays, and maybe not for anyone?

jeffb says:

03:25pm | 18/11/10

What exactly are the cons of same-sex marriage?

MarK says:

04:11pm | 18/11/10

Read my post that is at the bottom of the Phelos article. You will not miss it. It has its own post code.

jeffb says:

05:06pm | 18/11/10

I think I found what you’re referring to but at no point do you bring up a rational point against same-sex marriage, rather you project your fears of the unknown.

You 5 points seem to confuse the marriage act of Australia with religious ceremonies, then continue to stray into the usual bestiality, polygamy, paedophilia territory that is so often used to derail this debate.

You also seem to state that same-sex couples are unable to function as a family unit, or that a same-sex couple is an inferior family unit. Perhaps this is a point you could clarify for me because its certainly not true in reality.

Nowhere in those 2 posts do you justify why same-sex couples should be discriminated against, perhaps that’s another thing you could clarify.

The pro’s and con’s of same-sex marriage in reality are exactly the same as the marriage we have today, that’s why it’s a choice between two consenting adults.

(Also your style of quotations is somewhat juvenile, cherry picking quotes from an article that you can make easy points on while ignoring those you can’t, is it too much to ask that people reply to the article in full?)

Phil says:

05:44pm | 18/11/10

The fundamental flaw in the gay lobby’s argument is that marriage is a right.

Marriage isn’t a right - it is an entitlement. Entitlements are only given to those that satisfy the criteria - and the criteria exclude those of the same sex (and people of the same family such as brothers/sisters), those who want more than 2 people in the relationship, and those that don’t wish to make a life-long committment

Give gays rights - tell them to leave entitlements like authentic male-female marriage alone.

Gee, gays sure are lucky their parents weren’t gay ...

CJ Morgan says:

07:50pm | 18/11/10

Tim has a point. Every ugly divorce is preceded by a marriage.

A lot of grief could be avoided if the silly ritual is banned.

MarK says:

09:02am | 19/11/10

jeffb….you dont read real well do you?

Luce says:

09:36am | 19/11/10

Phil, you make a statement with no valid argument to back it up. You claim people of the same sex aren’t entitled to get married. Why? What’s so precious about “authentic” marriage that makes it so untouchable? Get over yourself and your prejudices and stop thinking that just because gay marriage goes against YOUR opinion of what marriage is about that you’re entitled to try prevent others from engaging in it.

Shane From Melbourne says:

03:28pm | 18/11/10

Guess you didn’t read the authors’ bio at the bottom of the webpage…..in case you didn’t know, the Australian Family Association is the Religious Right…..

Melanie says:

05:57am | 19/11/10

So, actually, the only people who like logical arguments are people who agree with you?

What a coincidence…

Jeremy says:

07:39am | 19/11/10

How disingenuous. Of course, you have to click through to see that Tim’s a spokesperson for the Australian Family Association - funny that he doesn’t concede that in the article.

And what a shameless piece of “divide and conquer”! His group agrees that marriage is important. So do the marriage equality advocates. So why must they argue with a third group about whether marriage is important? Because it distracts them from the real argument.

Cunning, but shameless.

Equality requires no more argument than noting that the law, at present, discriminates on the basis of gender. The law permits me to do something as a man (marry a woman) that it refuses a woman to do. There is no rational reason given for this discrimination. Ergo, the discrimination should be removed.

Tim says:

07:42am | 19/11/10

@Shane,
I stand corrected then, the religious right might not be as illogical as the gay lobby.
@Melanie,
yes usually people who like logical arguments agree with me.
Funny that.

Fred Phillips says:

10:42am | 19/11/10

“@Melanie,
yes usually people who like logical arguments agree with me.
Funny that.”

Self-pwning. Noice.

Sebastian says:

05:40pm | 20/11/10

@Tim:
What twaddle. In general the gay lobby and people who are gay tend to be more capable of managing the discussion/argument, then the moronic religious right who are the ones who push the barrow for not allowing same-sex marriage.

I guess over the years I’ve had some time to think about the concept of marriage, in the several forms I’ve struck it. Between men and women is a general rule is that I’ve been to church ceremonies are two gay men were joined and that was recognised by the government . The more I think about it the less point I see to it, in terms of religious ritual, promises to be faithful forever and ever, to stay together for the rest of your natural life and so on. What nobody seems to take into account is that in general the human condition doesn’t seem to lend itself to a single relationship with a term of one’s natural life unless it happens to be a life sentence.

Tim Cannon appears to avoid looking at the actual process surrounding marriage, and I am inclined to the view that by looking at the statistics freely provided by the ABN, which I understand to date show 57% of marriages fail. Why then would you want to put yourself through a process which more than half of the time simply fails?

I remember some time back there was a humorous story about a chap who was walking down the main street of a large city with his friend and he suggested to his friend, (who is planning to get married), what you should do is look at all these women find one that you absolutely can’t stand and hand her the keys to your house. by doing so, just think of all the heartache you save.

I guess my issue as a gay man is that I simply don’t understand why people want “marriage”, apart from to achieve certain legal equality with heterosexuals who have made these promises. It seems quite clear from a little research I’ve done on the subject that if one documents one’s intentions and has those intentions witnessed properly, the equality is achieved.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

05:37pm | 18/11/10

Steely Dan :  You argue with word semantics Dan , nothing more , or to put it a little more bluntly , bullshit.
The gay lobby may want what we have in marriage but it is for the convenience of a false cloak of respectability , not sanctity.
Gays have prematurely arrived at a conclusion of tolerance and blind
acceptance of depravity by the general public . They are wrong.

There has not yet been any case put forward from any quarter to justify same sex marriage .  Marriage is a hetrosexual , institutional vehicle meant to expand the human species in an orderly manner acceptable to the human community . Civil , religous , or simply ceremonial marriage sanctifies a union between a man and woman , within the binds of love , to procreate and multiply.

Dan says:

10:14am | 19/11/10

You come across as an angry Religiphobic. I sense a chip on your shoulder which requires you to go through life attacking the breeders of the world. This somehow justifies your existence to yourself. (Sad)

The more this debate continues the weaker and more farcical the gay argument becomes. The Gays will defeat themselves at this rate.

Steely Dan says:

07:44pm | 21/11/10

@ Wayne

It’s a ‘heterosexual vehicle’ for procreation?  People need to be married to do that?  Is state-recognised marriage a incentives package for baby-making? 

If everyone really is equal under the law, you need to give reasons (ones that actually stand up to scrutiny!) for why marriage rights shouldn’t be extended to non-heterosexuals.

Sheldon says:

03:21pm | 18/11/10

But they already are. Homosexual couples now have the same legal rights as those in de-facto relationships

MarK says:

03:27pm | 18/11/10

“No, they can’t be, that’s the issue.”

Yes they can be and that is not the issue. They might not have them right now everywhere across Australia but legislation can make it so legally without the need to be married.

AliceC says:

11:32am | 19/11/10

@MarK

So, if gay couples are included in the Marriage Act, that’s all the legislation resolved in one fell swoop.

What’s the issue with gay people getting married again?

Steely Dan says:

03:57pm | 18/11/10

@ Nate

1. You’re equating marriage with procreation.
2. We ‘override’ millions (yes, millions) of years of biology all the time.  Wear shoes?  Did those shoes grow out of your feet?  No?  Will a biological process get angry at you for doing that?

trixie melodian says:

03:25pm | 18/11/10

I would suggest that same sex couples don’t want to be fobbed off with a second-best “keep’em quiet” option that provides them with a poor imitation of marriage approved by the local council and not recognised by any state or federal bodies. Instead they would prefer to wait it out and fight for the real thing.

Kerryn Phelps says:

03:56pm | 18/11/10

Imagine all your friends going on a holiday to a six star resort in Hawaii. You are offered a stay in a one and a half star motel somewhere you don’t want to go. Still a holiday but hardly on a par.  55% of same sex couple have indicated that they would marry if they had legal equality. The fact that nobody chose to line up at the Council for a meaningless piece of paper with no rights attached shows a reasonable level of common sense and sociopolitical awareness.

Farmer says:

04:17pm | 18/11/10

O, trixie, you’ll always have an argument, won’t you? Refer to Jim’s comment (one of 323) on “theounch” re Kerryn Phelps ranting, as follows:
  Jim says:  01:58pm | 18/11/10

  Well, ‘offensively stupid’ to me is someone coming out in pompous tones and making a blanket statement like ‘They say that they are opposed to gay marriage because homosexuality is “against the order of nature” or an “abomination”. ‘

  You’d find some of course, but overall very few people who think that way.
  I also find it weird that gay people need to feel like they are hated?
  The biggest insult I have ever given a gay person - and it was all inadvertently - was when I showed complete disinterest in his new found ‘outness’. He was a bloke I went to school with, everyone at school thought he was gay; it never bothered anyone. Some years after school he was at a pub in town, I said g’day and he announced he was gay. I shrugged my shoulders and said ‘so what?’
  The look on his face was as if his dog had just been run over…what did he expect? Me to dance around and throw rose petals, cheering on his courage to come out? No, his exact words were “you could have at least got angry”

I don’t think I can make a better comment. It wouldn’t matter what homosexual people were granted; there would still be another demand for attention.

StefanR says:

06:06pm | 18/11/10

Farmer, what you say applies to people, not just gay people. For example, check out the straight white guys whining in the other thread about how tough they have it being white straight and male.

notsurprised says:

06:17pm | 18/11/10

Hmm, maybe that’s why many refer to themselves as drama queens :p

trixie melodian says:

03:39pm | 18/11/10

“We will all start saying “he/she is hetero married” or “he she is same sex married” rather than saying “he/she is married”

Why on earth would we need to do that? When you introduce someone with a same-sex partner do you say, “This is Jane and her lesbian partner, Michelle,” or “My colleague Daniel told me about a great restaurant he went to with his gay male lover on the weekend”? Or do you say, “My brother just announced his engagement to an Asian woman “?

Why does it MATTER what “kind” of marriage it is? All that matters is that this is a couple who has chosen to announce their relationship publicly and show their commitment to the world.

Farmer says:

04:26pm | 18/11/10

@ Trixie - no, I don’t introduce my ‘gay’ friend as being gay. But neither do I introduce my ‘straight’ friends as being straight.

As it often turns out, my “gay” friends often tell my “straight” friends that they are “gay”. Quite unnecessary, wouldn’t you think?

hot tub political machine says:

04:27pm | 18/11/10

Why does anyone want to know the details of other people’s business? I can’t answer for them all - they probably have all kinds of weird reasons, but they do.

trixie melodian says:

04:50pm | 18/11/10

Exactly my point Farmer, so why would HTPM think that we would suddenly start referring to people as “hetero-married” if same sex marriage was introduced?

PS this doesn’t even *touch* on the general assumption by the vast majority of society that someone is straight until proven otherwise. Many people in a work or unfamiliar social environment have to specifically mention their partner by name to correct or pre-empt the automatic assumption that their partner is of the opposite sex.

It’s kind of like being mistaken for an American when you are Canadian. It’s not a huge issue, but it makes sense to correct someone’s misapprehension if they are incorrect.

Reg says:

05:05pm | 18/11/10

Trixie, I’ve lived in an unmarried relationship for 30 years and have never felt the need to announce to the world at large, or the neighbours in particular, details of our relationship even though we steadfastly use different names. It would seem that the pressure some feel to be married is so that they can conform, or take advantage of the right to broadcast their situation as part of a religious rite. I suppose their need must be religiously motivated because that is the origin of the term. Being unaffiliated,  I do not feel bound by any sort of pressure to do likewise.  That would make their conflict a religious one and something to which I refuse to be bound. Purely a religious problem and something our government should not waste its time on.

StefanR says:

06:11pm | 18/11/10

Farmer, no it isn’t surprising. When you are discriminated against because of a particular attribute, that attribute becomes a larger part of your identity.

Not everyone has the privilege of being able to ‘see beyond’ sexuality. Some have barriers placed in front of us because of it.

Paul Horn says:

05:36pm | 18/11/10

No Trevor. First and foremost marriage was considered to be the most appropriate type of relationship for bringing children into the world in Western Society. In other societies other types of arrangements were applicable such as polygamy where alpha males had all the females and beta males were compelled to swear fealty.

The fact that infertile men and women chose to marry was supportive both morally and physically of those fertile married couples that would go on to have children.  Otherwise why would anyone marry?  If the infertile chap down the road was spreading himself around do you think that the fertile bloke would not be influenced to follow suit? So your argument is fallacious and completely erroneous. 

It is interesting to note that the Communists did away with marriage in the 1920’s. They supported sexual freedoms of all persuasions. What happened is not unlike today. Millions of children born out of wedlock that were an immense drain on the State as parents simply abandoned or were unable to support their offspring. So much so that the Butcher Stalin was forced to reintroduce the marital relationship and enforce sexual responsibiity on those milions of men that up to then were freed of it’s burdens.

We just never learn. Feminism is roorted in this perversion of nature! 

   
Mariage used to be the gateway to sex

Eric says:

05:04pm | 18/11/10

“If we were truly a society of individual freedoms then all of these things would be legal, individual choices.”

So ... if you marry someone of the same sex, who exactly will arrest you? On what charge?

Paul Horn says:

05:40pm | 18/11/10

and if a man wants to marry a pig what’s the big friggin deal? Even if his intentions are purely platonic! For Gods sake get a grip! You are describing nothing but a bloody farce as Mr Cannon correctly asserts!

AndrewLK says:

10:50pm | 18/11/10

Straw man argument, Eric. It’s not a criminal law that would be being broken - rather it’s a lack of an appropriate civil law even so much as existing.

You *do* understand the difference between criminal and civil law, don’t you?

Maybe someone should put it in simple terms you understand: we’re not talking about going down to the local Bunnings and getting done for shop lifting.

We’re talking about going down to Bunnings and saying “Hi there, I’d like a shiny new 4 burner barbeque (with a hood) please,” and the shop attendant saying
“I’m sorry Eric, 4 burner barbeques (with a hood) don’t exist. We are fundamentally opposed to the existence of 4 burner barbeques (with a hood) as a matter of principle. In fact, will not even consider drawing up the plans for a 4 burner barbeque (with a hood).
“But if it’s really that big a deal, and you want something, how about this nifty claw hammer? I know it’s not what you were after, but you can use it to tenderise the meat that you can’t cook, because we don’t believe in four burner barbeques (with a hood).”

Matt says:

10:19am | 19/11/10

AndrewLK your analogy implies that homosexuals are unable to enter any sort of state recognisable relationship, and unable to get any sort of rights that are affordable to ‘normal’ married couples.

In actuality, by the state affording the rights that accompany marriage to homosexual couples, but not the label, the analogy is more closely identified by going to Bunnings, asking for a 4 burner barbeque (with a hood) and having them say:

Sorry, we don’t call 4 burner barbeques (with a hood) “4 burner barbeques (with a hood)”. We call them “hooded 4 burner barbeques”. They’re available in aisle 5.

Whilst I would accept that this is stupid, I don’t see the cause for outrage.

Fred Phillips says:

10:58am | 19/11/10

“and if a man wants to marry a pig what’s the big friggin deal?”

Well, a person of the same gender as me is still human. Whereas a pig’s an animal. See the difference? Those two things are completely different.

You might as well argue that if we legalise gay marriage, next they’ll be asking to legalise murder as well. It’s an idiotic non sequitur.

StefanR says:

06:14pm | 18/11/10

Married couples don’t have equal rights to de facto couples.

“Dr Phelps argues that marriage “is about the right to have your relationship legally recognised, your next of kin status respected in a medical emergency, your children’s inheritance rights protected.””

iansand says:

06:18pm | 18/11/10

Ever checked the intestacy laws?  Or the laws on who has access to superannuation?

PaulB says:

10:47pm | 18/11/10

Nice one Matt.  As one of those affected (and sick of) this debate, I’m struggling to see what “marriage” would give us that we don’t already have.  And as far as this “recognition” goes we have all we need of that between ourselves and those in our lives for whom it is relevant.  This whole debate is a distraction and a waste of oxygen.

Matt says:

10:09am | 19/11/10

I fully believe any laws that discriminate against the rights of same sex couples should be altered. I think the majority of Australians (but clearly not all) would support that. However, dragging marriage into the spotlight has simply taken our attention away from the actual issues of discrimination.

I would believe you if you say that inheritance rights and supperannuation laws still need amending, but let’s focus our attention on fixing the discrimination areas (the actual problems), and leave the discussion of titles to those who seem to have more time on their hands than they know what to do with.

John of Brisbane says:

07:52pm | 18/11/10

Ain’t that the truth ... in todays society you can have exactly the same rights without even the intention of cohabiting with someone ... regardless of sex. Go on try it, live with someone for twelve months and you can claim half their property, so in fact in law you are regarded as married even if you don’t want to be.  Go to Centrelink , the tax office, court etc they don’t care, try and apply for a first home owners grant ... they don’t care.. if you have lived with someone for a certain period of time you are regarded as married.  Now on the other side if you are married and you don’t have an enduring Power of Attorney and see what happens if your partner loses their mind. 
The argument of equal rights is fallacious ... what is the real agenda

Jeremy says:

08:04am | 19/11/10

Which was of cause Tim’s aim. This article is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to divide & conquer.

He’s a spokesperson for the Australian Family Association. He’s not seriously arguing that marriage isn’t important or necessary: he’s just pretending the other side has to. (And ignoring that they do, anyway.)

St. Michael says:

06:15pm | 18/11/10

So you’;re saying gay marriage is good to tell children about until they’re about 7 or 8 years of age?

marley says:

07:37am | 19/11/10

Santa Claus doesn’t exist.  Gay marriage does, in quite a number of countries.  Logic fail.

AliceC says:

11:40am | 19/11/10

@Blazes

Please explain….

R says:

01:44pm | 19/11/10

I think marriage makes as much sense as Christmas - it’s largely just a feel-good consumer exercise. Some people still believe it means something more than that - and whoever they are, straight or gay, they should be allowed to celebrate it. We don’t only let church-going Christians celebrate Christmas and tell everyone else they’re not allowed! People make of it what they want, so let them.

DOT says:

04:56pm | 30/09/11

good call, R!

This is what the debate is really about. christians have hogged the legal definition of marriage for too long. people get discriminated against because a law is in place that states that they are not equal to heterosexuals because they go against the apparent christian values.

a whole load of christians dont follow the moral values of the religion they are meant to be following, a whole load of atheists do. a lot of heterosexual couples do not act like they are in a truly loving monogamous relationship or value their relationship properly, while plenty of gays do.

all the morally deficient christians still take all the credit and benefits they can get out of these sometimes quite silly and sometimes very meaningful celebrations of moral values and relationships. they should stop cancelling christmas for all the serious lovers out there!

Sheldon says:

04:39pm | 18/11/10

So if I were to realy love my mother I would have to Marry her?

Blazes says:

04:47pm | 18/11/10

“Marriage is the ultimate way of saying “I love you.”
Why? Explain - your argument is based purely on emotion and not on reason and then you have the hide to go and call anyone who wants to look at it logically “homophobic”!

St. Michael says:

06:16pm | 18/11/10

“Greater love hath no man than that he should lay down his life for his friends.”

So Jesus was married after all!

Danny B says:

08:18am | 19/11/10

Silly me…

I assumed common sense would be applied to my statement.  Allow me to clarify:

Marriage is the ultimate way of saying “I love you.” to someone who isn’t related, and whom you want to spend the rest of your life with.

And isn’t love and marriage an emotional construct, first and foremost?

And as for the poster who brought up Jesus, I prefer to keep my arguments confined to works of fact, not fiction.

Heather says:

09:37am | 23/11/10

@Danny B, just as a side issue, Dan Brown’s highly ridiculous literary offer aside, there’s nothing in Scripture that either confirms or denies Christ was, or could be, married.

And before anyone brings up the “without sin” fallacy—sex within marriage is not, Biblically speaking, a sin.

D says:

05:16pm | 30/09/11

good call!

“love” comes in many forms, but the idea of wanting the social and financial security that comes to heterosexual couples in the form of marriage is not exclusive to those who want children. it’s about loving someone enough that you want to make an emotional commitment to them permanently, with the community as a witness to this commitment and the law ensuring that you gat all the benefits that should normally come with this. people can have “mock” marriages, and feel like their marriage is of the same value, but it will not be valued the same by others because until the government changes the law there is just one more layer of discrimination that they will have to fight against as as long as that law states the couple’s love to be of an unequal quality, the people will continue to believe it too.

DOT says:

05:06pm | 30/09/11

don’t forget that if we put aside a harmless and over -emotional debate on this moral issue, someone might actually notice that climate change and deforestation don’t have any religious fanaticals or traditional cultural icons in the way of having something done about them.

whether legalised or not, gay marriage will not cost the government a cent. saving the world would cost them billions, and with the emotional debating out of the way, the government would no longer have a cloud of tears and religion to hide behind on the case that it would be their responsibility to the people to pay for that…

                              ....dangerous stuff, this rational thinking.

John of Brisbane says:

07:55pm | 18/11/10

True , they charge heaps more for a wedding cake than a commitment cake.

Paul Horn says:

01:05pm | 19/11/10

So by your reasoning you should also be supporting the same “rights”  for polygamists, polyamorists, bestialists, animists etc etc etc? So why is the argument only constrained towards homosexuality?

DOT says:

05:52pm | 30/09/11

Perfectly put,

and @Paul Horn,

...marriage is under our current definition meant to be between two people. the problem is discrimination due to gender furthering the terrible discrimination globally of gender roles and abusive sexism.

Maybe someday, we will be debating to legalise polygamyist marriage, but ti seems a bit silly as the idea of marriage would seem to exist as a commitment to an adult relationship to a person you love, but then again if a group of people all love each other in this way and want the rights of marriage I don’t see what’s so wrong with that either as it wouldn’t actually hurt anyone and would at least be more honest.  the problem with polygamy is that it is continuing an age -old discrimination in gender because it was started traditionally so that a man could have a whole load of wives to have sex and babies with. someday, when this tradition is LONG gone, this won’t be a problem but as long as the idea floats around in some far -flung corner of the world i would never debate for it, and it really goes against what the gay marriage debate stands for, which is gender equality.

as for bestiality…

uuummm, you probably didn’t read this properly, as it is discussing HUMAN society, which other animals are, funnily enough, excluded from.

trixie melodian says:

04:22pm | 18/11/10

Don’t worry, he doesn’t really believe that marriage should be abolished, he’s just doing the equivalent of a bratty toddler who threatens to break his own toy rather than have to share it with any of his friends.

jonny vincent says:

04:30pm | 20/11/10

Ah I think majority is onto something here. I read this article and thought, “That is quite literally the finest example of Socialist Left duplicity I have ever seen!” - and I’ve seen it a thousand times, but I thought this was the finest example yet of that classic Communist ploy of appearing to objective / undecided, asking a lot of questions to which the answers are all clearly in support of a specific Socialist position, repeating all the Socialist Left rhetoric (as a prelude to a counter-argument against it); then, when the counter-argument *finally* arrives (after 2/3rds of his paper listing Socialist Left arguments one after another), the arguments ostensibly against Gay marriage are pure trap arguments against Marriage.

It’s one of the best anti-MARRIAGE arguments I’ve ever seen, under the guise of an anti-GAY marriage argument. He even ‘accuses’ the “Socialist Left” of a ‘conspiracy’ to do exactly what he’s doing - triggering a discussion on the validity of MARRIAGE by hijacking the sentiments of those who oppose GAY marriage. I mean, it’s brilliant. Even, one might say, “canny”?

Then to discover he’s claiming to be an AFA spokesman. I’m dumbstruck. This cannot be. This is classic brilliant / crafty Socialist Left subterfuge. He simply cannot be an AFA spokesman. The entire paper is a brilliantly disguised argument against Marriage!

The trap arguments he’s ostensibly presenting as being arguments against Gay marriage, he’s already despatched early in his arguments. .

“remain exclusively faithful”, “recognising permanence”, “exclusive, lifelong fidelity” etc. All supposedly against Gay marriage. But he’s already flicked them away with:

“Lifelong? Not in the age of the pre-nup. Exclusive? Er, no; apparently having an affair can be good for you and your spouse. For better or worse? Thanks, but an e-divorce sounds more convenient.”

“only this kind of relationship produces offspring” and then “social utility of exclusively faithful permanence, given our inherently procreative nature” - these two arguments are a brilliant contradiction which negate each other, a classic Left tactic. Is Marriage serving to produce offspring or prevent offspring? 

And that’s the SUM total of his anti-Gay marriage ‘arguments’. All of which are clearly traps, evident by his careful inclusion of phrasing which he’s ensured can be stricken down very easily.

“Under such strain, there seems to be a stronger case for giving marriage the flick.”

Well yes Tim. You’ve made that case, and made it brilliantly - very crafty stuff. He accuses the Socialist Left of wanting to trigger a discussion about Marriage instead of Gay marriage. Then he spends an entire article doing EXACTLY when he just pointed out was the “canny” Socialist Left’s intent all along.

I cannot accept that he’s an AFA spokesman. It’s simply impossible. This is the single finest argument against Marriage I’ve seen yet, cheekily dressed up with trap arguments purported against Gay marriage which, on closer inspection, are clearly intended to be arguments against Marriage itself. This is diabolically brilliant Socialist Left subterfuge.

It simply HAS to be. It’s too perfect to be a mere ‘poorly’ constructed argument which opens and closes with the - coincidentally - the most logical argument one can possibly make in an egalitarian society, when one is assessing the validity of concessions given to a specific group at the exclusion of others. Of course, no one who doesn’t believe THEM = US, will detect it. But every Undecided will think “Um, hang on. What’s wrong with wanting the concessions they are being given?”

And presto. A discussion about Marriage. Which is what the Socialist Left have wanted the discussion to be about from the start. Brilliant. Cheeky. Scary. But very, very uniquely classic Socialist Left duplicity.

Zaf says:

04:18pm | 18/11/10

Oh, Zeta, you break my heart!  There is always something.  Always.

trixie melodian says:

04:32pm | 18/11/10

“Gee I’m getting tired of the Gay Marriage BS.”

Yeah, damn all those uppity, tiresome poofs who have the gall to demand the same rights as us!

fairsfair says:

06:25pm | 18/11/10

No Trixie - people are just tired of it. And me, a person who does not hold a stong opinion either way now feels like fighting tooth and nail to stop it because you and people like you have absolutely no respect for opposing arguments. As with anything discussed in modern society if you disagree (or in this case advise that you do not wish to discuss it)you are a homophobic, xenophobic, bigoted, racist, radical, bogan, sexist, cheuvanist, descriminatory, stupid pig. Well biteme is none of those things just listed, he is simply expressing the view of a whole lot of people. Why did 53% of the population say the approve? because they couldn’t care either way. I do however recognise that marriage means more to the high percentage of religeous individuals in this country than it would do to the minority homosexual population. Find a real cause to champion on behalf of someone else and pull your head in.

Vicki PS says:

12:39am | 19/11/10

Good-oh, they’ve been told to behave and keep themselves nice.  Should be no problems then, hey?  All you caring parents sending your teenage kids off to Sodom by the Sea can relax. (It will only be the evil little bastards who are already going to Hell who will get hurt, killed, diseased or pregnant).

Fred Phillips says:

11:03am | 19/11/10

Just out of interest, everyone who is tired of hearing about the gay marriage “BS”: are you straight or gay?

Michael says:

04:50pm | 18/11/10

A piece of paper called a Marriage certificate has nothing to do with better kids. I agree parental faithfulness, togetherness and love is indeed so very important. Regardless of the gender of the parents.

Kate says:

10:06pm | 18/11/10

I may have kids one day and my partner (opposite sex) and I will not be getting married.  What’s that got to do with what kind of job we will do raising them and guess what…there are still 2 of us!

Ted says:

04:17pm | 18/11/10

Danny, not to put to fine a point on it BS. I have an 1979 Oxford Dictionary in front of me that clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman. You are trying to hid behind a government definition that was clearly implemented to stop craven, immorally scum lawyers from playing semantics with the law.

Danny B says:

08:21am | 19/11/10

Ted,

The Oxford Dictionary doesn’t define what’s a legal marriage in Australia - the law does.  It’s been pointed out time and time again that the gay marriage debate stems from the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act, which defined it as being ‘a man and a woman’.  Thus, it wasn’t defined as ‘a man and a woman’ in Australian law before 2004.

Heather says:

09:46am | 23/11/10

That would be fine if it was true, but they’re wrong about the Puritans being “the first”. Civil marriages existed, and were practised, throughout the early medieval period (c 400-1000AD). Even as recently as the 1450s, there were still arguments within the universal Church as to whether marriage was/should be considered a “sacrament” or not.

Sacramental marriage was often instituted where a party wanted a sense of “permanence” within the international community.—cf Emma of Normandy’s marriage to Canute Sweinsson in 10th century England—he also had a civil wife and while Emma and Canute were married civilly she also insisted on a sacramental marriage so that her marriage would be recognised by the Church and therefore less dissolvable—specifically so that her sons by Canute would be recognised as heirs: Hardcanut, of course, pre-sat his older half-brother Edward as a result. She, of course, learned from her father and brother’s marriages in Normandy—several spouses were the norm and the Danes had similar practices.

Your point remains. It’s simply that it’s older and marriage as a sacrament is less “across the board” than thought.

Sid says:

04:20pm | 18/11/10

And thats were you miss the mark. It is the fact that they are trying to protect children and families that they are standing their ground!!!

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:23pm | 18/11/10

@ Sid- Australian Family Association is a front organization for the National Civic Council which evolved from the Catholic Social Studies Movement aka “The Movement”. Both are essentially Catholic Church fronts. It’s ironic that this article rants on about socialism and communism since both communism and the catholic church use the same techniques- establishment of front organisations, infiltration of other organizations, the use of members to write letter campaigns/ blogging campaigns as grey propaganda etc.

Daniel says:

07:07am | 19/11/10

I have come to believe that “family values” is code for hate speech.
If they really were interested in protecting and encouraging the family unit then they should be supporting gay marriage and adoptions. Children are better off with two parents in a stable environment regardless of gender.

Fred Phillips says:

11:14am | 19/11/10

Sid, can you please explain how denying gays the right to marry protects children and families? Please be specific. Thanks.

papachango says:

05:03pm | 18/11/10

It’s a simple fact that the loudest campaigners for same sex marriage are Marxist and Socialist organisations. If you don’t believe me go check out Scoailist Alliance and green Left Weekly.

They carry on about gay rights as if they’re oppressed victims of some sort of class struggle. I wonder if they actually realise the Marx and Engels were actually homophobic, describing homosexuality as an ‘abomination’

Personally I couldn’t care less if the definition of the word ‘marriage’ is officially changed. I don’t get the religious nutters’ argument that it threatens the insititution of the family, but nor do I get the insistence that the state legally recognise your union.

The most important thing is that same sex couples should have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as heteros.

Fred Phillips says:

11:15am | 19/11/10

papchango, I read recently where a survey showed that 60% of Australians support gay marriage. This isn’t some far-Left issue, you know.

papachango says:

04:28pm | 19/11/10

Fred Phillips - yes I support it myself, but the far Left are trying to hijack it as their own and turn it into a class struggle issue.

The Badger says:

05:25pm | 18/11/10

How about these Bron

Marriage is a great institution, but I’m not ready for an institution.
Mae West

The reason why so few marriages are happy is because young ladies spend their time in making nets, not in making cages.
Jonathan Swift

Marriage must incessantly contend with a monster that devours everything: familiarity.
Honore de Balzac

A man in love is not complete until he is married. Then he is finished.
Zsa Zsa Gabor

The bonds of wedlock are so heavy that it takes two to carry them - sometimes three.
Alexandre Dumas

A good marriage would be between a blind wife and a deaf husband.
Honore de Balzac

Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.
Oscar Wilde

A man may be a fool and not know it, but not if he is married.
Henry Louis Mencken

Bron says:

09:47pm | 18/11/10

Well Badger, I have to admit, your quotes (excepting salty Mae & I have to admit, I laughed most at hers) are far more literary then mine…......but it’s nice to know that mine & Kev’s opinion is backed up by illustrious others…....I wonder what Oscar Wilde could have contributed to today’s topic?

The Badger says:

09:29am | 19/11/10

I don’t know what Oscar would have contributed, but he did say these things on marriage and the man / woman relationship

The one charm about marriage is that it makes a life of deception absolutely necessary for both parties.

How marriage ruins a man! It is as demoralizing as cigarettes, and far more expensive.

Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.

Men always want to be a woman’s first love - women like to be a man’s last romance.

Men marry because they are tired; women, because they are curious; both are disappointed.

One should always be in love. That is the reason one should never marry.

The world has grown suspicious of anything that looks like a happily married life.

Woman begins by resisting a man’s advances and ends by blocking his retreat.

JJJ says:

07:14pm | 18/11/10

I have come to think the reason why people who are gay want this so much is that they really just feel like they are still not treated as ‘equals’ and this will help them achieve that. Little do they know that ALL people (regardless of sexual orientation) feel different to others at least some of the time AND they are judged and picked on sometimes too. Maybe if we give them the marriage they will realise this is a HUMAN condition - not just a bias against them.
Like you said - they can have it. Who cares?! Who would it HURT if people who are gay get married exactly?!?!

Two Mummies says:

08:23am | 19/11/10

That’s right it isn’t easy. My partner and I spent several thousand dollars obtaining a parenting order from the family court so that the non-birth mother is recognised as our childs legal guardian. But guess what that doesn’t extend inheritance rights or a number of other legal entitlements that our daughter would have if she was in a straight family unit. Also the parenting order ‘expires’ when our daughter turns 18 severing all legal ties between her and her mother. At the moment Centrelink assesses our eligibility for family payments assuming that my partner is the ‘mother’ but she has no federally recognised relationship to our daughter other than through the parenting order.

The federal government is happy to recognise our family unit when it comes to saving money through the family payments system but completely ignores every other aspect and by doing so actively discriminates against our family and our daughter.

Tim says:

09:18am | 19/11/10

Two mummies,
The problem is that you assume that gay families should be recognised as the same as straight ones.
I think that’s a whole other debate.

Fred Phillips says:

11:20am | 19/11/10

“The problem is that you assume that gay families should be recognised as the same as straight ones.”

Please list all the reasons why she shouldn’t do that.

AliceC says:

11:56am | 19/11/10

BRILLIANT!!! : )

Raider says:

01:53pm | 19/11/10

Excellently articulated 4leaf!

Kika says:

01:57pm | 19/11/10

It’s amazing how just because you’ve become married there’s not just the ‘I wonder if they will have kids’ to the automatic presumption and RIGHT to breed just because you’ve signed that mythical bottom line. I fell pregnant once before I was married quite a few years ago and my mum flipped. Her first reaction “You’re not even married yet!”. I lost the baby. Now I am married she and all my other female relatives are just waiting for the baby to come. I have told them that we have no plans to breed yet. They are convinced I am just in a ‘phase’ and I will become clucky soon. She places her experience with mine, and now I am older than her when she fell pregnant with me, she thinks there’s something wrong with me and I have a right to basically ‘sperm raid’ from my husband to have a baby - whether he’s ready to be a father or not. Well, that’s what she did to my father. Because she was married, she had a RIGHT to breed. This kind of thinking belongs in the 60’s.

Quite a few of my friends have been married and have put off breeding for quite a few years. In the olden days they just assumed that with marriage meant “ok, babies now”. It just doesn’t happen that way anymore!

So if gay people want to get married, let them! I don’t sit there at the wedding registry every weekend checking in to see who’s getting married this week and whether they should be. I don’t care. I really don’t care and I can’t see why it’s anyone’s business who is getting married. Boring!

Beck says:

10:13am | 19/11/10

I’m with you Kate. Don’t see the point of marriage, but also don’t see why some people shouldn’t be allowed to get married.

I do however think there should be a law against those obnoxious poems included with wedding invitations that demand cash from guests.

HS says:

11:53am | 19/11/10

Yeah, I don’t believe in marriage full stop. As long as people have equal rights, I don’t care. And I don’t care if people want to marry/fornicate with the same sex, or even their TV set. Maybe marriage should be differentiated into Religious marriage and Civil marriage; and all the religious people can have their own ceremony, with honoring and obeying and breeding and all that sort of stuff.

Observer says:

05:14pm | 26/11/10

To right Beck. And a law against equally obnoxious bridezillas. Now THERE is an example of a social phenomenon that undermines the sanctity/institution/<insert other mawkish descriptor > of marriage.

Two Mummies says:

08:25am | 19/11/10

De-facto is not legally identical….you really should brush up on Family Law.

R says:

09:09am | 19/11/10

No need for the tone… You could just tell me or point me in the right direction. I never claimed to be a lawyer.

Two Mummies says:

12:06pm | 19/11/10

There was no tone implied only a sparsity of prose on account of rushing off to a meeting. Personally I think ‘marriage’ should be left to the church and ‘civil unions’ put in place for everyone…straight or gay. I don’t really care if you call yourself married or unioned or coupled or whatever else people can think of. The basic issue is that I deserve exactly the same rights as my straight counterpart.

R says:

01:41pm | 19/11/10

Yes, I agree - whatever we have, we should have it for all. That’s why I support the issue even though I’m against marriage in itself. I’ll do a bit of digging to see what the difference is between de-facto, civil union and marriage. Thanks for your reply.

Two Mummies says:

02:34pm | 19/11/10

The main differences are jurisdictional. Each state and territory has some ‘control’ over some aspects of what legal rights ‘couples’ have. Good example being adoption.

Federally, some of the big issues are having to ‘prove’ the status of your relationship (you don’t have to do this if you are married you just wave your marriage certificate at people), the ‘timing’ of your relationship (certain protections/obligations kick in after a length of time so after two years you gain access to some legal rights, you never have to wait if you are married.  At Centrelink straight defactos have presumptive parental rights….same sex couples don’t get afforded the same rights. So my partners earnings get taken into account for family assistance payments but the federal government doesn’t recognise her as our childs mother if we were a straight couple they would (they do now recognise her as our daughters guardian as we got a parenting order from the family court, not every same-sex couple can afford to do this).

Daniel says:

10:30am | 19/11/10

Gay people make up probably about 2% of the population. Even if 50% of those got married it would hardly water down the meaning of marriage or affect you in any way.

AliceC says:

11:59am | 19/11/10

@Joe

And how would two gay people getting married water down your marriage, or the institution of marriage?

That’s my favourite argument I think: “People getting married will ruin the insitution of marriage…. ” LOL!!!

AliceC says:

12:01pm | 19/11/10

Yes! All thos evil gay people wanting to destory the insitution of marriage…by getting married. How awful! The world will explode and we’ll all die and…....

Wait, it’s not the end of the world?

Sick of fundamentalists who have an inflated opini says:

04:49pm | 24/11/10

Racist as well as homophobic hey Greg? That pretty much shows how much merit your opinion has.

Two Mummies says:

12:11pm | 19/11/10

Yes that’s it exactly… I pine away each night hoping against hope that one day the Federal Government will allow my partner and I to frock up. That is of course when I have time….usually I am too busy with me plans of world domination including ‘hijacking marriage (whatever that means) and ruining it for all the straight people of the world….especially the religious straight ones.

We can’t have a civil union because it doesn’t exist in Federal law. And why the hell should we have a ‘second rate’ civil union while straights get to have a ‘marriage’? What makes your tax dollars and contribution to society so much better than mine or so much more worthy of recognition??????

Sandy says:

04:48pm | 19/11/10

@ 2 mummies

How’s any word ‘second rate’ to the word ‘marriage’? Because they say so?

Either way. I want to know.  Even if do change the legislation.  What about all the common law where matters around husbands and wives turns up?  That’ll all have to legislated for won’t it?

All just to have the gay community treated as poorly by all these laws as the straight community.  You’re welcome to it.

Kabas says:

10:35am | 19/11/10

google the phrase: “separate but equal”

Helen says:

11:20am | 19/11/10

Kabas - You didn’t read what I wrote.
I am arguing for exact and total and complete equality in everything except the name.
This is the exact opposite of “separate but equal” which was a shared phrase used to hide inequality.

Tim says:

09:21am | 19/11/10

And as pointed out in the article, what is so special about monogamous relationships?
It’s like saying groups of people aren’t capable or allowed to commit to each another the same way heterosexual couples can.

Sandy says:

09:03am | 22/11/10

It’s clear that members of both the homosexual and heterosexual community believe that Marriage (under Australian law) cover obligations that IT DOES NOT.  There is nothing in Australian law about things like monogamy and commitment that people on both sides associate with the word marriage.  It got taken out in 1975 when we moved to no-fault separation. Clearly there are too many people on both sides that are being MISLEAD by the Australian law as it currently stands.  Hence the word marriage should be taken out of the legislation completely to prevent confusion and to protect our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

my4cents says:

09:26am | 24/11/10

First, the article is addressed to advocates of a change to the law. It’s not asking individual gay persons to explain why they want to get married. It is saying that if you want to advocate for change to a fairly important socio-legal institution, you need to put forward a solid case.

That means understanding what the institution is, why it exists, and why it has certain characteristics. If the changes you propose are out of kilter with certain fundamental elements of the original institution, then we have a problem.

If someone came along and said “I think mothers day should also celebrate women who aren’t mums “, it would be reasonable to say, “hang on - what do you think mothers day is actually about?”

That is not to say that mothers need to justify mothers day every time it comes around. Just that if someone wants to change mothers day, for example to make it more inclusive, then they need to show that they understand why mothers day is the way it is, and why the change would not be contrary to the essential point of mothers day.

Secondly, you say you don’t want to get into the whole multiple-marriage crap, but can you provide any sensible reason why marriage should be limited to 2 people, but should discriminate against polyamorous relationships? If not, then your desire for same-sex marriage isn’t based on good sense, it is just based on desire and emotion, and that’s not a good basis for changing the law.

Thirdly, legal recognition is possible through alternative means: civil unions, relationship registers, etc, which all remove the need for the de-facto waiting period.

So basically your post amounts to saying “I really really really really wanna get married, and it’s just not FAIR!”

Not good enough.

Sandy says:

11:40am | 24/11/10

Where did my previous post go?
“marriage is the well-established avenue for recognising a relationship. .... Why should I be denied the ability to recognise my love this way? Marriage under Australian law does no such thing.  It’s merely an efficient mechanism for signing up to a bundle of rights and obligations. Any vows or public announcements of love, infidelity and commitment for social acceptance were all but stripped out our law by Whitlam in 1975 when we moved to ‘no-fault’ divorce. I.e. these expressions are given little or no value under Australian marriage law.

It seems what you are seeking is within a social definition of marriage. Not the legal reality. And to many,  you will appear to be attempting to change the social definition of ‘marriage’. And many of those follow religions which openly oppose homosexuality.  I.e. the religions give followers the green light to act on their fear and competitive nature. And the resultant intolerance spreads to non-followers.

There’s nothing stopping you from saying you are married and calling your partner husband or wife.  But don’t expect followers of religion to accept it. I’m sure that they won’t deny you your bundle of rights and obligations. But they don’t want to share their podium with you. They don’t share your social definition of love.

Yes, this may frustrate and annoy you but good luck with changing religion. And yes, it must frustrate you even more then when artifacts of religion remain in our ‘secular’ institutions. Religions which in the opinion of many like you are intolerant. Annoying like if we went down the path of having different words separating the ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage’.  I can understand why this angers and annoys you. Particularly, if it results in you not being allowed to tick the ‘wife’ or ‘husband’ or ‘married’ box in a government form. That’s just the intolerance poking at you through the secular institutions. Irrespective of you having your bundle of rights and obligations.

But don’t ever think that ‘married’ under Australian law has anything to do with love. Just saying this so you don’t get hurt when the cold hard reality of Australian family law slaps you in the face if you got through separation. Just trying to set the record straight. You know, so I don’t get accused of being a Denis Denuto by the likes of Phelps.

Sandy says:

12:04pm | 24/11/10

Correction
I meant to write: “They don’t share your social efinition of marriage”

Sandy says:

12:52pm | 24/11/10

I haven’t checked up on these facts but my understanding is the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and hence Utah allowed polygamy for a while until the other States threatened to kick them out of the Union. It was apparently allowed to give all women the right to have children in the absence of enough men who were being killed doing the more dangerous work and in the civil war.  See where the ‘rights’ argument can take us. Apparently the husband still had to demonstrate that he was capable of supporting more than one wife.

Try this in Oz and apparently you can be jailed for 5 years.  But it’s OK to lie in parliament.  Go figure.

Just saying this stuf so that the esteemed Professor Phelps doesn’t accuse me of being all about the ‘vibe’.

Sandy says:

01:13pm | 24/11/10

@ my4cents

“Thirdly, legal recognition is possible through alternative means: civil unions, relationship registers, etc, which all remove the need for the de-facto waiting period.”  Are you saying these alternative means result in the same rights and obligations as ‘marriage’ under Australian law (federal and state legislature and judicial including torts).  I doubt it?