Australia living in the dark ages

[tea4too]

i didnt mean you had to be able to have children to get married or that it is a key factor. i was explaining why i think plural marriage is more closely aligned to the standard heterosexual marriage because both these marriages have the potential to procreate naturally.

 

if people are serious about marriage equality & think it is worth changing the law then i dont think its fair to limit the change to only include same sex couples because thats not fair to other people.

 

I disagree that plural marriage is more closely aligned "due to the potential to procreate naturally". Children may be the purpose or the outcome for some married couples, but that concept can equably be applied to couples who cohabit. And couples who cohabit (same sex or otherwise) may or may not have children.

 

The point for me is that an individual's gender is being used as a reason to prevent some couples from legally marrying, yet I cannot see the benefits of such discrimination. And I tend to agree with @Gbye grey sky, in so far as plural marriage is a separate issue as it is not directly comparable, and raises a number of additional issues for society to consider in a way that 'couples' marriage does not. T x

[BacktoDemocracy]

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.

Well one of them had better not die while they're here, that would be a can of worms to sort out.

[BacktoDemocracy]

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.

Nah, just to exercise his petty little prejudices.

[deryans]

Don't be ridiculous.

The law is what makes something legal or illegal.

 

A law itself cannot be illegal.

 

The law is a jurisdictional obligation/framework is either enforced (police) or compliant and obligatory (i.e tax and moral behaviour)

 

The law can be and is often wrong and inappropriate for the matter hand, laws are constantly being reviewed, amended and updated.

 

This is why we have decision makers, also known as Judicial Officers....

[deryans]

Nah, just to exercise his petty little prejudices.

 

John Howard lied about children overboard and tampa and thus he broke the law.

 

It's a real pity he carries the same name as the brilliant major who led the Ox and Bucks airborne gliders on to pegasus bridge in the first act on d-day 1944, a man who would gladly welcome and protect the weak.

[Parley]

Sovereign nations create their own laws.

While there are international bodies like the UN, they don't have any right to change anything.

 

True countries voluntarily sign up to international things at times and outside countried sometime apply sanctions if they don't like what a country does.

But each country can and does create its own laws.

 

Obviously various countries still imprison and even kill homosexuals, let alone let them get married.

[newjez]

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.

 

Yes, but the definition of marriage is in direct conflict with Australias anti discrimination laws, and thus needs ratification from a court. The two are mutually exclusive and need clarification.

[Parley]

If that was true it would have happened.

[newjez]

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.

 

Because a new word implies it is a different thing, possibly a lesser thing, and they are asking for equality.

[newjez]

If that was true it would have happened.

 

Statute law is always defined by the courts. Has there ever been a legal challenge? Apart from the act debacle

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Australian_Capital_Territory

[Ellie 2]

Because a new word implies it is a different thing, possibly a lesser thing, and they are asking for equality.

 

Not necessarily. I image the new word could be classified as a synonym.

[flag of convenience]

Sovereign nations create their own laws.

While there are international bodies like the UN, they don't have any right to change anything.

 

True countries voluntarily sign up to international things at times and outside countried sometime apply sanctions if they don't like what a country does.

But each country can and does create its own laws.

 

Obviously various countries still imprison and even kill homosexuals, let alone let them get married.

 

While each country does of course make its own laws, entering into trade agreements, does create the risk of potentially being sued for non compliance, for example.

[Gbye grey sky]

Because a new word implies it is a different thing, possibly a lesser thing, and they are asking for equality.

 

Apparently it's a "quest" for equality.......and that is a bad thing!?!

[IrishDigger]

Australia living in the dark ages - a few years ago I picked up some visiting friends from America, Canada and the United Kingdom, it was their first time in Australia and after settling and doing the tourist bit they stated that in comparison to their own countries arriving in Australia seemed like stepping back in time to the 1950's, 60's and 70's.

 

I reckon given what is happening in the world today, there would be a lot of people who would like to to back to the so called 'Dark Ages'.

[Keith and Linda]

Because a new word implies it is a different thing, possibly a lesser thing, and they are asking for equality.

 

Why would it be a lesser thing? that is at least two posters now that have introduced this and there is really no need unless of course it is just so you can keep up an argument, is Mrs lesser than Miss or Ms? or vica-versa? NO! they imply different things only with no relation to being lesser or inferior

[flag of convenience]

Australia living in the dark ages - a few years ago I picked up some visiting friends from America, Canada and the United Kingdom, it was their first time in Australia and after settling and doing the tourist bit they stated that in comparison to their own countries arriving in Australia seemed like stepping back in time to the 1950's, 60's and 70's.

 

I reckon given what is happening in the world today, there would be a lot of people who would like to to back to the so called 'Dark Ages'.

 

In the sense of social conservatism maybe, but hardly in neoliberal irrational economic theory becoming policy. Something government would dearly love to implement on the population. Nothing ' Dark Ages' about that sadly.

[Parley]

It is interesting that people have been scaremongering about vilification of gay people, but the reality is that all the vilification has been from the pro gay marriage side.

 

A Christian meeting had to be cancelled due to nasty vilification from pro same sex marriage supporters.

 

http://www.news-mail.com.au/news/same-sex-gathering-cancelled-after-threats-hotel-s/3090737/

[flag of convenience]

As long as legal aspects are fully covered without bias towards gender relations, I'm not sure I see a compelling need. We certainly could change and I would applaud it but don't deem it essential for wellbeing.

Far prefer to see a greater spread in tolerance allowing folk the freedom the life their lives as they see fit, believing in which ever deity they prefer, with respect shown to all and the out lawing of harassment towards minorities due to their sexual preference, religion, race position in life, age, gender and the rest. Life being far too short not to celebrate the diversity of human kind. Makes life far more interesting as well.

[flag of convenience]

It is interesting that people have been scaremongering about vilification of gay people, but the reality is that all the vilification has been from the pro gay marriage side.

 

A Christian meeting had to be cancelled due to nasty vilification from pro same sex marriage supporters.

 

http://www.news-mail.com.au/news/same-sex-gathering-cancelled-after-threats-hotel-s/3090737/

 

I think most will be aware the vilification is against those in the main who are' Queer'. Gay youth in school (country especially bad) Gay folk being put to death in conservative parts of the world. Attacked in the streets in others.

[Keith and Linda]

Apparently it's a "quest" for equality.......and that is a bad thing!?!

 

It would appear that it is you yet again that is doing the ridiculing! where are the post which say that equality is a bad thing?

[tea4too]

Why would it be a lesser thing? that is at least two posters now that have introduced this and there is really no need unless of course it is just so you can keep up an argument, is Mrs lesser than Miss or Ms? or vica-versa? NO! they imply different things only with no relation to being lesser or inferior

 

I'm not sure that's a great example of equality tbh. Males and females are treated differently as a direct result of the titles some societies impose.

 

While Mr confirms you as male and nothing more, there is no direct equivalent for females. Not even ‘Ms’ fits the bill because of its perceived links to feminists and the conscious or unconscious bias that provokes. Society like to know whether women are married, single, or consider themselves emancipated, and official titles go a long way towards telling complete strangers more than they need to know. I guess women could lie, but that's not a dilemma any Mr would have to consider. T x

[Gbye grey sky]

I'm not sure that's a great example of equality tbh. Males and females are treated differently as a direct result of the titles some societies impose.

 

While Mr confirms you as male and nothing more, there is no direct equivalent for females. Not even ‘Ms’ fits the bill because of its perceived links to feminists and the conscious or unconscious bias that provokes. Society like to know whether women are married, single, or consider themselves emancipated, and official titles go a long way towards telling complete strangers more than they need to know. I guess women could lie, but that's not a dilemma any Mr would have to consider. T x

 

And you didn't even mention the expectation that they give up their family name and assume their husband's. Not doing so is becoming a little more common but is viewed by some as a lack of commitment to the marriage or husband.

[Peccavi]

Interesting. I choose Ms, feminist or not. I have neither my husband nor my fathers name but concede I can do ugger ball about being female or woman. it irks a tad, but life is too short to sweat it.

'Marriage' for me is a man/woman thing,-but I approach that from a pov of see a marriage contract as archaic nonsense. I'm damned if I can figure why such is so important, but there you go..

 

My closest friend in Oz never 'came out', and why not? I never 'came out' as hetero. He would have disagreed with my view, but as I said it has more to do with why we pursue this Christian (or Muslim or Martian) ideal.

 

Each to his/her own. (View, that is).

[newjez]

Why would it be a lesser thing? that is at least two posters now that have introduced this and there is really no need unless of course it is just so you can keep up an argument, is Mrs lesser than Miss or Ms? or vica-versa? NO! they imply different things only with no relation to being lesser or inferior

 

 

I've always thought miss should go the way of master and we just have Mr and Mrs. Ms is just a silly distraction, which is what another word for gay marriage would be. If you feel the need to differentiate, then why not call it what it is, gay marriage?

[Keith and Linda]

I've always thought miss should go the way of master and we just have Mr and Mrs. Ms is just a silly distraction, which is what another word for gay marriage would be. If you feel the need to differentiate, then why not call it what it is, gay marriage?

 

I wonder how many Ms's think of it like that? seems strange how one would battle for one cause but call someone else's silly!