Australia living in the dark ages

[Booma]

I do not agree that the question of plural marriage - or indeed any other union that someone could come up with - should be linked to the issue of gay marriage. It is a quite separate thing. If you, Parley, or anyone else, in a democracy, feel a strong urge to make the case for plural marriage you should start by writing to your MP perhaps.

 

But this question is about gay marriage and bringing Australian policy on this in alignment with many symbiotic countries which have legalised gay marriage. As it is legally married gay couples are not recognised as married when they enter Australia. No. such situation exists for plural marriage.

you are mistaken as i have a friend who is a second wife legally married in iraq but not recognised in oz. when her family migrated everyone including her children came on her husbands qualifications but she wasnt counted as part of the family & had to qualify for her own visa. in this she had a harder time than homosexual couples who at least can get there relationship recognised if they want to migrate.

 

i think other unions are very relevant to the discussion. if marriage is no longer accepted as being between one man & one woman & if people are going to throw the word equality around then they need to accept that equality doesnt end with homosexuals. you cant say you want equality for one group & not another based on your personal preferences.

 

I prefer the traditional definition that marriage is between one man & one woman of legal age. however if that definition is to be changed it needs to encompass other people in the community.

[Gbye grey sky]

There is no point my debating with someone who holds such old fashioned ideas. I hope for your kids' sake that none of them are gay, they don't deserve to have to deal with such a dinosaur.

 

This type of thing is precisely why a plebiscite is a bad idea - it allows people such as you to vilify a whole group of people for something beyond their control, and reveal such a lack of knowledge. Perhaps you should consider the saying that 'it is better to remain silent and be thought ignorant, than speak and prove it beyond doubt".

 

I am on the same side of the argument as you and because of this I am moved to comment. I felt very uncomfortable with the way you express yourself. You crossed a line with this and the comments are gratuitous, offensive and unwarranted.

[Gbye grey sky]

[/b]

you are mistaken as i have a friend who is a second wife legally married in iraq but not recognised in oz. when her family migrated everyone including her children came on her husbands qualifications but she wasnt counted as part of the family & had to qualify for her own visa. in this she had a harder time than homosexual couples who at least can get there relationship recognised if they want to migrate.

 

i think other unions are very relevant to the discussion. if marriage is no longer accepted as being between one man & one woman & if people are going to throw the word equality around then they need to accept that equality doesnt end with homosexuals. you cant say you want equality for one group & not another based on your personal preferences.

 

I prefer the traditional definition that marriage is between one man & one woman of legal age. however if that definition is to be changed it needs to encompass other people in the community.

 

They are separate issues and throw up different challenges legally in terms of child custody arrangements following separation, divorce or death. Or inheritance issues. I am sure many others too. Plural relationships is a quite separate issue and one that you should take up with your MP if you feel they should be recognised in law. I very much doubt that you would though.

 

As you say, you are against gay marriage and plural marriage. Unfortunately you are using a classic 'straw man' argument to deflect the topic.

[Booma]

They are separate issues and throw up different challenges legally in terms of child custody arrangements following separation, divorce or death. Or inheritance issues. I am sure many others too. Plural relationships is a quite separate issue and one that you should take up with your MP if you feel they should be recognised in law. I very much doubt that you would though.

 

As you say, you are against gay marriage and plural marriage. Unfortunately you are using a classic 'straw man' argument to deflect the topic.

 

 

actually no, im not against it as such. it doesnt fit with my definition of marriage but i will go along with what a majority think in a vote. if a vote agrees to change the definition to deliver so called equality i do feel very strongly that equality should encompass more than just homosexual marriage.

[Keith and Linda]

Fair enough but it was not clear to me what the quest was that you were alluding to.

 

I still consider that you attach a superior tag to the term marriage thereby inferring that the relationship we share with our respective spouses is inherently better than any such gay union could be. Why indeed even come up with another word solely to describe a union of two gay people. Would you want a different word for men and for women perhaps?

 

It comes over as splitting hairs tbh and you regrettably end up on the same side of the argument as people who frankly are completely intolerant of homosexuality as any vote (if it happens) will be a single question, yes or no. There is no multiple choice in a plebiscite or referendum.

 

I cannot see where I highlight it as any form of "superior tag" but then folk do jump on words to make an argument out of it don't they?

So why do they want to split hairs? Why can't they just leave it be?

[ramot]

When having a debate on marriage do you not think the actions of the individuals with respect to their own marriage is not relevant? Historically, in many countries, parleycross would not have been able to re marry. In the modern age, that has changed. It makes a mockery of the idea that marriage is some static thing with a static definition which can never be changed. The definition of marriage is constantly changing. In fact the Australian govt changed it in 2004!

 

I know nothing about the poster's marriage situation, why should I? I only know what you felt the need to post.

[Gbye grey sky]

actually no, im not against it as such. it doesnt fit with my definition of marriage but i will go along with what a majority think in a vote. if a vote agrees to change the definition to deliver so called equality i do feel very strongly that equality should encompass more than just homosexual marriage.

 

Going along with the majority is hardly a major concession. That is democracy after all. The fact is you are against it by your own admission and therefore would vote against it. Or are you saying that if they said plural marriages and gay marriages were together on the vote you would then be in favour of gay marriage . By introducing a much more contentious issue and providing a wholly spurious link you weaken the case for gay marriage.

 

I think it is a bit like having a plebiscite on legalising cannabis but then saying why not include ice on the question as well. After all, they are both drugs. And by looking to legalise something no other western nation has you certainly help kicking the lesser one into the long grass.

 

As I said plurality actually gives rise to real legal issues that are totally distinct from the marriage of two people.

 

There are no parallels in the western world to legalise plurality but if this is a cause you are passionate about then go for it but it is not and cannot be linked to the marriage of two people.

[Gbye grey sky]

I cannot see where I highlight it as any form of "superior tag" but then folk do jump on words to make an argument out of it don't they?

So why do they want to split hairs? Why can't they just leave it be?

 

You could definitely have advanced the same argument against the right for women to vote or any other social change. Leave things as they are because it works for you. If you had gay friends who wanted to marry it would be interesting to hear you tell them why you thought they should not be.

[Gbye grey sky]

My issue is with having the right and ability to impose that quite narrow view on a small minority. When all is said and done what possible harm can be inflicted on the rest of society by permitting a loving couple to wed each other?

 

In what way could it impact personally on you?

 

I posed this question earlier. Do any of the opponents of gay marriage have an answer?

[Guest241083]

I posed this question earlier. Do any of the opponents of gay marriage have an answer?

 

 

.........have been discussing this topic with my mother.....and her friends..

.........myself in the for camp....

..........her and her friends against......

..........their argument being that over time the framework for society has slowly been eroded away....

..........the morals of many reaching a low....

..........and that the marriage of same sex couples would encourage those who choose to ignore laws and society norms/ rules

...........to inturn try their cause....

...........indeed as someone has said......if same sex is allowed......why not multiple wives ,husbands....?

...........the legal age questioned....

...........I can see their points.........but my answer is progress....

............acceptance of those once ostracised for their difference.....

.............the framework of society has not been eroded IMO....

..............it has and should be restructured.....

..............if nothing else in the world today.......we should encourage tolerance and acceptance of those different from ourselves....

..............and ensure they have the same rights and titles....

...............after all a civil ceremony is not a marriage.....

.................And a marriage is between a spouse and a spouse......and should be regardless of gender IMO...

[Gbye grey sky]

.........have been discussing this topic with my mother.....and her friends..

.........myself in the for camp....

..........her and her friends against......

..........their argument being that over time the framework for society has slowly been eroded away....

..........the morals of many reaching a low....

..........and that the marriage of same sex couples would encourage those who choose to ignore laws and society norms/ rules

...........to inturn try their cause....

...........indeed as someone has said......if same sex is allowed......why not multiple wives ,husbands....?

...........the legal age questioned....

...........I can see their points.........but my answer is progress....

............acceptance of those once ostracised for their difference.....

.............the framework of society has not been eroded IMO....

..............it has and should be restructured.....

..............if nothing else in the world today.......we should encourage tolerance and acceptance of those different from ourselves....

..............and ensure they have the same rights and titles....

...............after all a civil ceremony is not a marriage.....

.................And a marriage is between a spouse and a spouse......and should be regardless of gender IMO...

 

Hmmm. The essence of this is that they consider homosexuality immoral and permitting same sex couples to marry is promoting immorality. The gay marriage debate is an interesting one I suppose in that it shines a light on latent homophobia.

 

This is after all a generation which would have grown up knowing that homosexuality was not immoral, but illegal. And, furthermore, punishable with prison. It is therefore something of a quantum leap for a certain generation.

[Guest241083]

Hmmm. The essence of this is that they consider homosexuality immoral and permitting same sex couples to marry is promoting immorality. The gay marriage debate is an interesting one I suppose in that it shines a light on latent homophobia.

 

This is after all a generation which would have grown up knowing that homosexuality was not immoral, but illegal. And, furthermore, punishable with prison. It is therefore something of a quantum leap for a certain generation.

 

 

..........not only for that generation......

...........but those taught and encouraged by them.....

...........it will be a slow acceptance I feel.....

...........to consider the changes that have happened in their lifetime.....

...........to want to hold on to some percieved values....

...........and not all homophobic....!

............just that marriage should not be an option.....it encroaches on the values and traditions of marriage as they see it...

.............cripes ! I believe same sex couple should have the right..!..

............and am putting forward beliefs of why not....

[newjez]

Don't be ridiculous.

The law is what makes something legal or illegal.

 

A law itself cannot be illegal.

 

 

Laws are interpreted by the courts.

[Gbye grey sky]

It is still unquantifiable what effect legalisation of gay marriage on the lives of heterosexual people (who it is expected are being asked to approve it or not) positive or negative. It surely does not devalue their own marriage and the denial of marriage will not, in itself, break up relationships so will not impact on homosexual acts.

[newjez]

I know nothing about the poster's marriage situation, why should I? I only know what you felt the need to post.

 

This subject has been debated many times.

[Keith and Linda]

You could definitely have advanced the same argument against the right for women to vote or any other social change. Leave things as they are because it works for you. If you had gay friends who wanted to marry it would be interesting to hear you tell them why you thought they should not be.

 

Though you do not know my friends so you cannot know what I or they say or think about each other, Gays can be together and they can and as I have said before SHOULD have equal rights. If one has an agreed and signed contract then somebody else wants to come along and change the conditions of that contract for what can be read as for their own selfish reasons, when they could actually have their own separate contract with almost identical conditions but it would have a different heading that's all. Every word has a different meaning marriage has its meaning so there is need to find another word, and I cannot see what is dinosaur/stick-in-the-mud/old fashioned about that in fact to me it is progress a new thing so a new word.

[newjez]

.........have been discussing this topic with my mother.....and her friends..

.........myself in the for camp....

..........her and her friends against......

..........their argument being that over time the framework for society has slowly been eroded away....

..........the morals of many reaching a low....

..........and that the marriage of same sex couples would encourage those who choose to ignore laws and society norms/ rules

...........to inturn try their cause....

...........indeed as someone has said......if same sex is allowed......why not multiple wives ,husbands....?

...........the legal age questioned....

...........I can see their points.........but my answer is progress....

............acceptance of those once ostracised for their difference.....

.............the framework of society has not been eroded IMO....

..............it has and should be restructured.....

..............if nothing else in the world today.......we should encourage tolerance and acceptance of those different from ourselves....

..............and ensure they have the same rights and titles....

...............after all a civil ceremony is not a marriage.....

.................And a marriage is between a spouse and a spouse......and should be regardless of gender IMO...

 

I never understand how people think passing laws leads to anarchy. The two are generally mutually exclusive.

[Gbye grey sky]

Though you do not know my friends so you cannot know what I or they say or think about each other, Gays can be together and they can and as I have said before SHOULD have equal rights. If one has an agreed and signed contract then somebody else wants to come along and change the conditions of that contract for what can be read as for their own selfish reasons, when they could actually have their own separate contract with almost identical conditions but it would have a different heading that's all. Every word has a different meaning marriage has its meaning so there is need to find another word, and I cannot see what is dinosaur/stick-in-the-mud/old fashioned about that in fact to me it is progress a new thing so a new word.

 

What word suits you?

[Guest241083]

I never understand how people think passing laws leads to anarchy. The two are generally mutually exclusive.

 

 

..........perhaps more a state of disorder........as a knock on effect from a law passed....

[newjez]

I posed this question earlier. Do any of the opponents of gay marriage have an answer?

 

 

I've had this debate with my parents, and after refuting every argument we got to the, 'well it's just disgusting, two people of the same sex doing what they do, it just makes me want to be sick, should be illegal, there should be a law against it, it's disgraceful '.

 

I pointed out that that door had closed long ago, but they still wouldn't accept it. A referendum would be interested. Most people shouldn't really care as it has no effect on them. But those motivated like my parents would vote, and they may not out number progressive people, but they may outnumber gay people.

[Keith and Linda]

What word suits you?

 

Not for me to make a word for it I just believe in the one word it should not be. Somebody may have a eureka of an idea for a word, it does happen.

Off for the week end now....................GO BRONCOS!

[Keith and Linda]

I've had this debate with my parents, and after refuting every argument we got to the, 'well it's just disgusting, two people of the same sex doing what they do, it just makes me want to be sick, should be illegal, there should be a law against it, it's disgraceful '.

 

I pointed out that that door had closed long ago, but they still wouldn't accept it. A referendum would be interested. Most people shouldn't really care as it has no effect on them. But those motivated like my parents would vote, and they may not out number progressive people, but they may outnumber gay people.

 

My, what old dinosaurs your parents are:tongue:

[Gbye grey sky]

Not for me to make a word for it I just believe in the one word it should not be. Somebody may have a eureka of an idea for a word, it does happen.

Off for the week end now....................GO BRONCOS!

 

Maybe instead of a Marriage they could go for a Mirage. This should at least create an illusion of equality.

 

Not too optimistic about the Broncos chances tonight but here's hoping.

[Parley]

Laws are interpreted by the courts.

 

The British or Australian government could change the law to reintroduce the death penalty if they wished.

You could not then say the law is illegal. That is illogical.

 

As long as the law is created unambiguously there is no issue.

 

This is why John Howard changed the marriage act to include the reference of one man to one woman.

While it had never been an issue and everyone knew what marriage was, he changed the law to remove the ambiguity.

[Gbye grey sky]

The British or Australian government could change the law to reintroduce the death penalty if they wished.

You could not then say the law is illegal. That is illogical.

 

As long as the law is created unambiguously there is no issue.

 

This is why John Howard changed the marriage act to include the reference of one man to one woman.

While it had never been an issue and everyone knew what marriage was, he changed the law to remove the ambiguity.

 

The reason he changed the law was because other countries were starting to recognise same sex marriage so it was necessary to de-legitimise such marriages as there was a particular concern that Australians might go overseas to get married and then return as a married couple.