Marriage Equality

[Pushka]

It comes down to the pedant's definition of 'to have children' but I have no wish to get hung up on this aspect; its just personal interpretations (fortunately I'm not a Judge of the US Supreme court ). I've always taken that phrase to mean that the adults concerned were the biological parents - egg and sperm contributor. If they adopt a child (hooray!) they might say 'we've adopted a little baby' rather than 'we've had a baby'.

YMMV.

Its like when a guy says "we are pregnant". We?

 

[vetrade]

I don't really think that many gays really yearn for marriage at all (yes I know that will draw howls of derision); my guess is that underneath it all they are expecting marriage equality to be a panacea for changing the general population's attitude towards their sexual orientation - a way of forcing the non gay population to "accept", or maybe even rejoice in, their orientation, if you will.

In time I anticipate that marriages between gays with suffer the same decline in interest that has be evident with heterosexual marriage for many years. Gays already have all the legal entitlements which come with any marriage or de facto union anyway. Having their union validated as "marriage" achieves nothing in a legal (discriminatory) sense so I think it's all about perceptions and once gays can marry they will likely soon grow bored with it. At the rate we are going, in 20-30 years marriage may well hold minimal attraction for both gays and heteros and I suspect that decline may accelerate among heteros if gay unions are ratified as "marriages". De facto relationships seem likely to predominate more and more as the liberalisation of societal values continues to evolve.

RIP marriage!

 

[N860CR]

I don't really think that many gays really yearn for marriage at all (yes I know that will draw howls of derision); my guess is that underneath it all they are expecting marriage equality to be a panacea for changing the general population's attitude towards their sexual orientation - a way of forcing the non gay population to "accept", or maybe even rejoice in, their orientation, if you will.

In time I anticipate that marriages between gays with suffer the same decline in interest that has be evident with heterosexual marriage for many years. Gays already have all the legal entitlements which come with any marriage or de facto union anyway. Having their union validated as "marriage" achieves nothing in a legal (discriminatory) sense so I think it's all about perceptions and once gays can marry they will likely soon grow bored with it. At the rate we are going, in 20-30 years marriage may well hold minimal attraction for both gays and heteros and I suspect that decline may accelerate among heteros if gay unions are ratified as "marriages". De facto relationships seem likely to predominate more and more as the liberalisation of societal values continues to evolve.

RIP marriage!

I do agree with your points there. There are plenty of gay people who want to marry. And plenty who don't. Funnily enough, there are plenty of heterosexual people sharing both views.

The simple fact of the matter is that gay people are still not accepted in mainstream society. I believe this will be a small step to stamping out that discrimination. Unfortunately, it's discrimination that I don't believe will be eradicated in our lifetime

 

[DC3]

No quotes from the Old Testament, here?

 

[Pushka]

I think it is all about choice.

 

[DC3]

Dont support gay marriage?

Simple - Dont marry a gay!

Yes, apparently it's not going to be compulsory.

 

[james4321]

I don't really think that many gays really yearn for marriage at all (yes I know that will draw howls of derision); my guess is that underneath it all they are expecting marriage equality to be a panacea for changing the general population's attitude towards their sexual orientation - a way of forcing the non gay population to "accept", or maybe even rejoice in, their orientation, if you will.

In time I anticipate that marriages between gays with suffer the same decline in interest that has be evident with heterosexual marriage for many years. Gays already have all the legal entitlements which come with any marriage or de facto union anyway. Having their union validated as "marriage" achieves nothing in a legal (discriminatory) sense so I think it's all about perceptions and once gays can marry they will likely soon grow bored with it. At the rate we are going, in 20-30 years marriage may well hold minimal attraction for both gays and heteros and I suspect that decline may accelerate among heteros if gay unions are ratified as "marriages". De facto relationships seem likely to predominate more and more as the liberalisation of societal values continues to evolve.

RIP marriage!

You may be correct - marriage may well disappear in the same way that many other religious based "norms" are being seen especially by the next generation as being completely invalid and of little interest. But everybody has the right to make that evaluation for themselves - its a matter of the right of choice.

 

[Shelf]

...What gets me is judges involved in making law. I can see how they clearly favour criminals in their decision making in Australia. I wouldn't want them involved in lawmaking in Australia in any way shape or form...

Magistrates and Judges in this country 'make laws' regularly.

 

[JohnM]

Well, all that I have to say on this is that, I for one, am eternally thankful that I am no longer married . They can have it as much as they like .

Advise your kids (ahem, however conceived): an excellent future career option: divorce lawyer. It's great now, but bound to be greater in the future - there's nothing like highly emotional people to drive the billable hours up...and up... .

 

[quokka77]

Here's my prediction: it'll be legal in Australia before the next election. Why? Because most Australians support it as a concept and because it has already happened across the Anglosphere and Western world (without polygamy, child marriage, pillars of salt or plagues of frogs). I personally think marriage is a kind of out of date concept, but hey, if you want to go that route, by all means.

 

[Deleted member]

.......Gays already have all the legal entitlements which come with any marriage or de facto union anyway. .......

RIP marriage!

My understanding of the U.S. Decision was to in fact give Gay couples the same rights under the law as they didn't in fact have the protection of a de facto relationship. So marriage aside, j suspect it's more about the protection one gets from the right to marry, rather than the act of getting married ( in a church) or not

 

[JohnM]

My understanding of the U.S. Decision was to in fact give Gay couples the same rights under the law as they didn't in fact have the protection of a de facto relationship. So marriage aside, j suspect it's more about the protection one gets from the right to marry, rather than the act of getting married ( in a church) or not

Someone has finally hit the nail on the head...

 

[dajop]

My understanding of the U.S. Decision was to in fact give Gay couples the same rights under the law as they didn't in fact have the protection of a de facto relationship. So marriage aside, j suspect it's more about the protection one gets from the right to marry, rather than the act of getting married ( in a church) or not

Exactly. De facto relationships (whether they involve partners of same sex or opposite) are not afforded the same protections in US that we take for granted in Australia - although I believe there are still a small number of benefits that de facto partners are not entitled to in Australia but would be in marriage.

 

[seanpodge]

Good news for the US, following on from Ireland. Puts Australia to shame a bit. Don't think much will happen here until Abbott is removed from the prime ministership (assuming Morrison doesn't replace him) and the SDA gets put in its box.

As for the children argument, people do realise that bisexuals exist, no? In any case, having a breeding qualification for marriage would lead us into some murky places. In any case, even if same sex de facto relationships have almost all the same rights as married couples, to borrow one of the better protest placards, people don't ask their lover to civil union them. It was clearly a second class solution put forward by people who just wanted to stall.

Finally, why should people's rights be decided only by voters? Just because something is popular doesn't make it by itself correct or ethical. One of the major principals of human rights is that they are universal and inalienable, as suggested in the US's own declaration of independence.

 

[james4321]

Good news for the US, following on from Ireland. Puts Australia to shame a bit. Don't think much will happen here until Abbott is removed from the prime ministership (assuming Morrison doesn't replace him) and the SDA gets put in its box.

Agree totally - sadly dinosaurs seem to be still alive and well in the Liberal party !!!

 

[medhead]

I am not going to debate any abusive comments here suffice to say this: There appears to be fixating on the words 'Animal Farm'. Its a pretty well known book with the concept I mentioned - how some animals are more equal to others. It was an analogy by Orwell to the unequalness in human society. I was using it in turn as an analogy to the use of the slogan 'Marriage equality' which sounds motherhood ... who can argue with equality, eh? However if 'marriage' is between 2 people, then 'marriage equality' should also apply to bigamous situations - John marries Jane, then he marries Susan, then he marries Sarah etc. That would be equality' for John just like it will be for James and Paul.

Where bestiality came from is beyond me. (Edit: refers to now redacted text.)

Well it seems I'm not allowed a view on this topic.

You can have whatever view you what, unlike me. But that doesn't mean people can't criticise your reasons for that view, especially when those reasons are completely without merit. The equality is not about the marriage arrangement, the equality is about the people involved in the marriage. You seem to completely misunderstand the issues involved. It is not abusive to point out the failure of your logic, which channels Corey Bernadi. There is absolutely no way to support your ludicrous assertion about bigamy.

As for bestiality, you raised that in repeating the poorly considered position of Corey Bernadi. What does all sorts of combinations mean?

What happened is that 4 judges out of 7 decided they would decide a change in law, rather than the law makers. So our 'lawmakers' won't be following suit. If you want our 'lawmakers' to follow suit, maybe you want them to follow suit of some US states but not others


And if we are talking about 'marriage equality', I assume bigamists also get equality? Multiple marriages means multiple equality, right? All sorts of combinations might require 'equality' now.

 

[Deleted member]

The simple fact of the matter is that gay people are still not accepted in mainstream society. I believe this will be a small step to stamping out that discrimination. Unfortunately, it's discrimination that I don't believe will be eradicated in our lifetime

I suspect when you say "Mainstream" society, you probably mean those in society that virtually oppose anything that doesn't meet a narrow ( mostly conservative) view of the way things were / are or should be !
That I would suggest will most likely never change

 

[vetrade]

Exactly. De facto relationships (whether they involve partners of same sex or opposite) are not afforded the same protections in US that we take for granted in Australia - although I believe there are still a small number of benefits that de facto partners are not entitled to in Australia but would be in marriage.

Which raises the obvious question: If it's about protections why can't the US put protections in place without changing marriage (like we have in Oz).....or alternatively, why should Oz allow gay marriage if we already have the protections in place without it?

I think the real answer is not just in protections - it is about gays trying to change perceptions of the wider population and enforce "acceptance".
I do find it amusing however, that the "progressive", typically non religious elements in society are clamoring to adopt an anachronistic religion based institution such as marriage.

I'm happy being married but quite frankly I couldn't care less if I wasn't. To me the whole argument seems to be about the "grass being greener....." so while gay marriage is almost certainly inevitable, it remains to be seen whether it turns out to be the idyll gays seem to think it to be.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>

As for bestiality, you raised that in repeating the poorly considered position of Corey Bernadi. What does all sorts of combinations mean?

Originally Posted by RooFlyer

And if we are talking about 'marriage equality', I assume bigamists also get equality? Multiple marriages means multiple equality, right? All sorts of combinations might require 'equality' now.

Dear, oh dear. One paragraph - one idea, remember? Two middle sentences refer to bigamy. The following sentence re all sorts of combinations refers to possible bigamous combinations: John-Jane; then John-Paul; then John and (transgender) Steve ... and so on.

Bestiality in this thread is entirely in your own mind I'm afraid, as is my 'channelling' Cory Bernadi.

 

[paxman]

good luck. it is a hard road ahead for X gen or younger holding views like that.....