| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
 Posted - 05/31/2008 : 00:02:11
|
MBI, if you thought my point was so flimsy, did you consider that maybe you hadn't understood it? Because, just between me and you, I think that's the most likely explanation.
As you rightly said, you didn't know how to go about arguing against it, as your comparison between same-sex couples and multi-racial couples misses a rather important biological difference - that one works naturally as a means of producing the next generation and one doesn't. Neither was it impossible 60 years ago to have mixed marriages in most parts of the world, whereas, marriage, as far as our cultural horizons can see back, has always been heterosexual across multiple cultures and multiple centuries. This should give you some clue as to the purpose of marriage.
Where I agree with you is when you say that if the world decides to accept gay marriages then we will have to accept it. Quite right, but most of the world hasn't decided yet, has it? Or rather it's longstanding decision not to allow same-sex marriages remains in place.
|
 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 00:47:08
|
A few years back the NZ government passed a law allowing homosexual 'Civil Unions'. It's a marriage in every way except they don't get to legally use the "M" word. It was largely acceptable to homosexual couples as they now have essentially the same legal status as married heterosexual couples, and it was largely 'acceptable' to homophobes as they get to keep the "M" word exclusively for use by man/woman married couples.
Essentially the argument boiled down to whether gay couples could use the "M" word, or were required to call it something else.
|
Edited by - Sean on 05/31/2008 00:48:46 |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy 
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 01:05:45
|
Firstly I'd like to say how impressed I've been with the civil and sensitive way in which this topic has been discussed thus far. One of the things that has most enamoured me about FWFR is the diversity of its members and the relatively harmonious way our differences add flavour to the Fourum.
Those who have known me for quite a while could probably guess my views on this issue - I've made no secret that I'm a Christian with a conservative worldview.
Silly's comments about multi-race issues sadden me because we're all part of the one race - there are ethnic divisions of course but when I donate blood they only have to match my blood type, not skin colour, to the recipient. However, gender is not a social construct.
quote:
The biggest threat to the institution of marriage is hardly gays; it's the other big percentage of the world that treat it like a joke.
Like silly, I think that marriage has been eroded over time by greater acceptance of divorce and adultery. The number of children who have been hurt by family breakdown is staggering; I see the victims every day in my classroom.
At the end of the day, I can only try to maintain the integrity of my beliefs by living according to them. In the 80's & 90's I worked at Sovereign Hill. On occasions we'd receive a booking for our Redcoats to go to Melbourne and march around at conference then get our photos taken with the crowd. After we'd finished, the guys would hit the booze (I was designated driver) and want to go to a strip club. I'd drive them there and read a book in the van. They weren't Christian, they knew I was - everyone acted in accordance with their values. However there would have been a problem if I'd have tried to impose my beliefs on them or vice versa.
Part of the difficulty with "gay marriage" is that there has been an established criteria of one man-one woman for marriage in western society for millenia. If that definition changes, it's all up for grabs. I think that's why the issue has become so contentious. If one (wo)man-one (wo)man is legalised, what code do we fall back on to prevent people arguing for polygamy or polyandry, lowering the age of consent etc. "What right do you have to tell me I can't sleep with my sister..." (I don't have a sister in case you're worried.)
Relativity always allows for the boundaries to be fluid and that means in my state of Victoria that I can no longer express certain views based on my religious beliefs without the possibility of ending up in the courts for intolerance. I believe that God intended marriage to be a life-long commitment between a man and a woman - a pairing to provide the most stable basis for raising children, and although I've seen some pretty dysfunctional family units in my time, I'm yet to be persuaded that any of the alternatives work better.
I love that in this fourum at least I can discuss issues with atheists, homosexuals, Muslims etc in a reasonably frank and reasoned fashion and we can still agree to disagree.
PS Silly, I clock up 20 years of wedded bliss next month and I'd marry her again tomorrow. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 01:47:49
|
If I failed to understand your point, Whippersnapper, then I'd appreciate more explanation. I sincerely doubt my opinion is going to change, but hey, it might. I need to understand 1) what benefits you are arguing that we, as a society, will lose if gays marry, and 2) why this is at all a relevant consideration in face of other factors in the debate.
The argument that feminists are backing off on the all-equality-all-the-time thing, I understand that one. But that's not a useful comparison. The feminism thing is a discussion of equal treatment by the whole of society; the gay marriage debate is a discussion of equal treatment under the law. And I have not heard a relevant argumnt that says gays should not have that... well, I hesitate to say "right," I think that word's overused, but that privelege, let's say.
quote:
As you rightly said, you didn't know how to go about arguing against it, as your comparison between same-sex couples and multi-racial couples misses a rather important biological difference - that one works naturally as a means of producing the next generation and one doesn't.
I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Lots of marriages take place between infertile couples or couples who won't ever have kids, marriage is hardly an institution reserved for those making babies.
quote:
I believe that God intended marriage to be a life-long commitment between a man and a woman - a pairing to provide the most stable basis for raising children, and although I've seen some pretty dysfunctional family units in my time, I'm yet to be persuaded that any of the alternatives work better.
Most studies have shown, Conan, that two-parent households work just as well whether gay or straight. It's the one-parent households where things start to fall apart. This is not saying that all one-parent households suck, that all two-parent households work, or that homosexuals are automatically fit for parenting -- just that they're no more or less likely to come out messed up if they're raised by a gay couple as they are by a straight couple.
|
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 02:13:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
The capitalisation is to make it clear that Marriage is a legal institution
and
Of your three meanings of marriage only the first should be a matter of public policy.
Initially, my view is that these are precisely the reasons there should be no differentiation between opposite- and same-sex marriage. Legally, it makes no sense to me to accept one and not the other without running the risk of discrimination based on the membership of a group.
I know how cliched it sounds to say "some of my best friends are gay," but it's more than true - most of my best friends are gay. Some of the others sometimes wish they were. After I was divorced, I temporarily lived with a girl who is a lesbian and was astonished at how many people assumed my divorce was somehow based on this later living arrangement. No matter that our bedrooms were not only separate, but on different floors of the apartment, and I may properly have been accused of having a parade of men in and out for the better part of that first summer. She moved for entirely different reasons and at that point, I moved into a new apartment shared with the gay man who lived next door. We lived together for about 10 years, finally purchasing a nice house. The barriers we faced in buying that house were ridiculous. We were considered "business partners" by the bank and every company we approached for house insurance, we weren't allowed to purchase joint life insurance to cover the property, we weren't allowed the luxury of survivorship. Although our finances were as joint as any legally sanctioned couple, we had penalties on income tax, and some odd little local statutes that allowed what was essentially discrimination based on property tax laws. It was frustrating.
My circle of friends includes a practitioner of serial marriage, two gay couples who have been together for a combined 32 years, one couple who have been together for over 25 years, and one man who was married to a lesbian for over 10 years and helped raise her son. Then there is me, who was unhappily married for 7 years, in that odd partnership for over 10, and gloriously co-habited with a too much younger man for over 3 years. In the end, I see very little difference in the level of mutual commitment amongst those varied couplings, in the acceptance and happiness levels of the children resulting from those relationships, and little difference in the expectations each couple has for one another. Then there are the 3 or 4 divorced women with children who are, mostly, not happy.
My view is that life is too short to be unhappy, to suffer discrimination, to have to fight for one's liberties or one's right to simply live. The worst is when one is forced to battle the obstacles thrown out by those who would impose their moral standards on the whole. Live and let live.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 03:27:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
Part of the difficulty with "gay marriage" is that there has been an established criteria of one man-one woman for marriage in western society for millenia. If that definition changes, it's all up for grabs.
So, from your perspective, can this be solved by calling a "gay marriage" something else? This was how this issue was solved in NZ. It's called a "Civil Union". |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 03:29:39
|
BTW, shouldn't this have been in the Off Topic section? What's it got to do with Film?  |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 04:36:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
So, from your perspective, can this be solved by calling a "gay marriage" something else? This was how this issue was solved in NZ. It's called a "Civil Union".
From my understanding the issue for many long-term gay partners is recognition of the legality of their partnership for superannuation, medical coverage and estate planning. Others such as carers, can face similar hurdles. Some conservative commentators critise the premise of civil unions as marriage-lite and when some Australian states proposed such measures they made allowances for 16 year olds to enter into such contracts. While being concerned with younger people entering into such agreements, I don't have a problem with people being able to nominate a partner for legal situations. |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 04:49:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Lots of marriages take place between infertile couples or couples who won't ever have kids, marriage is hardly an institution reserved for those making babies.
Until the pill, the choice to remain childless (unless through infertility) was a bit hit & miss; the withdrawal method being somewhat unreliable. Historically, marriage was designed as the place to make babies and there was a terrible social stigma visited, especially upon the child and mother, in cases of illegitimacy.
quote:
Originally posted by Me
I believe that God intended marriage to be a life-long commitment between a man and a woman - a pairing to provide the most stable basis for raising children, and although I've seen some pretty dysfunctional family units in my time, I'm yet to be persuaded that any of the alternatives work better.
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Most studies have shown, Conan, that two-parent households work just as well whether gay or straight. It's the one-parent households where things start to fall apart. This is not saying that all one-parent households suck, that all two-parent households work, or that homosexuals are automatically fit for parenting -- just that they're no more or less likely to come out messed up if they're raised by a gay couple as they are by a straight couple.
I believe that remains to be seen. For the sake of the children, I hope you're right. It can take a long time for all the effects of our experiments to be seen. Remember it wasn't that long ago that people were happily mining asbestos for use in homes and car brake pads. In hindsight, we know better. I really hope that our social experiments don't come back to bite us on the butt. |
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 05:17:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
BTW, shouldn't this have been in the Off Topic section? What's it got to do with Film?
Another brain fart on my part...I thought I was clicking on General/General. So shoot me. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 05:25:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
So, from your perspective, can this be solved by calling a "gay marriage" something else? This was how this issue was solved in NZ. It's called a "Civil Union".
From my understanding the issue for many long-term gay partners is recognition of the legality of their partnership for superannuation, medical coverage and estate planning. Others such as carers, can face similar hurdles. Some conservative commentators critise the premise of civil unions as marriage-lite and when some Australian states proposed such measures they made allowances for 16 year olds to enter into such contracts. While being concerned with younger people entering into such agreements, I don't have a problem with people being able to nominate a partner for legal situations.
I'll take that as a "Yes". 
Rather than "marriage-lite" I'd call it "marriage by another name".
BTW, I'm pretty sure that 16-year-olds can't be married here without parental consent, I think it's virtually unheard of. 18 is the age here for doing anything you want; marriage, alcohol, joining the army and killing people, voting etc. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 05:26:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh Improper Username
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
BTW, shouldn't this have been in the Off Topic section? What's it got to do with Film?
Another brain fart on my part...I thought I was clicking on General/General. So shoot me.
Bang!
 |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 05:46:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
So, from your perspective, can this be solved by calling a "gay marriage" something else? This was how this issue was solved in NZ. It's called a "Civil Union".
From my understanding the issue for many long-term gay partners is recognition of the legality of their partnership for superannuation, medical coverage and estate planning. Others such as carers, can face similar hurdles. Some conservative commentators critise the premise of civil unions as marriage-lite and when some Australian states proposed such measures they made allowances for 16 year olds to enter into such contracts. While being concerned with younger people entering into such agreements, I don't have a problem with people being able to nominate a partner for legal situations.
I'll take that as a "Yes".
Did my answer qualify me for a career in politics?  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 07:04:18
|
No, as it was more of a "Yes" than a "No". If you wanted a career in politics it would have been exactly in the middle.
 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 09:03:22
|
After reading a few more posts here I see semantics is a problem. Most people think of the word marriage as being defined as a man and a woman becoming united. But that's not necessarily true. In its most basic form, the word "marriage" means a social joining of two people into a union. There's no God, or gender in that definition, and nor should there be.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Gay Marriage
