Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Gay Marriage

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by smileedude, Apr 6, 2011.

  1. https://netrider.net.au/forums/showthread.php?t=120428&page=15



    An off topic debate has been raging for the last few days on this issue in the above thread. This is a devisive issue and I'm sure most people have an opinion on this issue.

    Out of laziness mainly on my own part the debate continued in the other thread after requests for it to be moved.

    My main point in arguing for gay marriage was

    Apologise ogden, you had many good points I could paste in here but I am really struggling to use the multiquote feature effectively and I'm trying to keep this OP brief.

    There has been a lot said in the other thread so make sure you refer to it before posting here.
     
     Top
  2. My own position in short:-

    I think same-sex couples should have access to the same legal status as heterosexual couples.

    I couldn't give a stuff whether this status is termed marriage or not.

    I'd rather not see a government I broadly support die in a political ditch over it as I have other priorities for me and mine.

    I have no strong views for or against marriage in general. It is, IMHO, what the participants make of it. Personally, I like being married and so, I hope, does my wife. Your mileage may vary.
     
     Top
  3.  Top
  4. Shouldn't be breathing the same air I'm breathing
     
     Top
  5. .
    Why?
     
     Top
  6. Thanks, smilieedue.

    OK, in the interest in inflaming debate (and maybe coping a good flaming on the way) here’s what I think:

    1. Marriage is a moribund form of property relation (but, if you wish to include your wives amongst your goats, sheep, pots, rugs and other prized chattels, go right ahead).

    2. People can make a life-long commitment to each other, if they so choose, without the need for their fornication to be recognised as legitimate under the approving gaze of family and friends, the polis and its gods. (It’s a wonder anyone can get it up at all with so eyes looking on!)

    3. The state’s present coercive determination of de-facto partnerships in instances of co-habitation lasting longer than a year not only makes a mockery of marriage, it poses particular problems if the scope of marriage is extended to include same-sex couples.

    4. That said, in interests of equality, people of any sexual persuasion ought to have access to civil partnerships with the same legal status as marriage (including the same inheritance rights and powers of attorney).

    5. Now to the nub of the matter. The central problem I have vis-à-vis gay marriage regards appellation of the term “marriage”. I don't think marriage has to be between a man and a woman, but it does have to result in a partnership between a husband and a wife. Without arriving at this distinction, marriage, as a term, looses its most fundamental meaning.

    6. I don't even care whether the marriage union is strictly between humans or not. If you want to marry a tree, go and do it. (I understand that this is done in some parts of India where the younger brothers are prohibited from marrying until all their older brothers have already married. If a younger brother finds someone to marry before their older brother, the older brother will be married to a tree so that the younger is free to marry without offending whichever of the Hindu gods is responsible for this bit of tradition.) However, it is clear in such an instance, which is the husband and which is the wife.

    7. The other thing is that, if marriage is an institution 'owned' by the social totality rather than any specific groups, and if recognition of its scope is a mandatory legal obligation, it’s important that any changes to it must have general assent. Gay marriage simply doesn't have this level of assent, and it is false to claim that this is purely a result of homophobia (although this is frequently a cause).

    8. Powers of linguistic discrimination do not necessarily militate against substantive equality if the distinction is purely nominal (which it is, if civil partnerships are seriously being offered). Resistance in this instance is motivated by a concern for the integrity of public language, and unwillingness to be coerced into using a vocabulary rendered illogical. Ultimately it’s an argument against social control.

    9. If absolute equality is the aim behind the gay-marriage movement, I’d prefer to accommodate them in this aim by seeing marriage abolished outright in preference of civil partnerships for everyone. (I don’t expect this is going to happen, but it makes more sense to me.)
     
     Top
  7. unfortunately it is his right to have such an opinion.

    i for one, think same sex marriages/unions should be recognized.
     
     Top
  8. LOL wut?
     
     Top
  9. It's pretty easy for me:
    I expect to be left alone to "do my thing", whatever that may be, on the understanding that "my thing" doesn't hurt or otherwise adversely affect someone else. So I'm happy to treat others the same way...
     
     Top
  10. Couldn't care less either way about the topic, each to their own.
     
     Top
  11. Personally, I cannot see why in todays society people have to fight for things like this which are basically anti discrimination rights.

    Yes, in my humble opinion marraige is an outdated institution that really has no place in society anymore. But then I am neither religeous or that interested in the idea personally.

    But my opinion doesn't mean others do not value this institution and if two people wish to engage in it then why shouldn't they be able to?
     
     Top

  12. 1. Marriage is a moribund form of property relation (but, if you wish to include your wives amongst your goats, sheep, pots, rugs and other prized chattels, go right ahead).


    Historically yes, presently no. Few men these days would get married to claim ownership of their wives. We have preserved marriage as a tradition, but the idea that a marriage is a form of property relations has rightfully been removed from this tradition.

    2. People can make a life-long commitment to each other, if they so choose, without the need for their fornication to be recognised as legitimate under the approving gaze of family and friends, the polis and its gods. (It’s a wonder anyone can get it up at all with so eyes looking on!)

    Yes I agree, heterosexual and homosexual couples can live together without the need for marriage. But marriage today is more about love and commitment then a property relationship people choose to marry out of tradition and respect for each other.

    3. The state’s present coercive determination of de-facto partnerships in instances of co-habitation lasting longer than a year not only makes a mockery of marriage, it poses particular problems if the scope of marriage is extended to include same-sex couples.

    I don't understand the paticular problems you refer to regarding same sex couples here.

    4. That said, in interests of equality, people of any sexual persuasion ought to have access to civil partnerships with the same legal status as marriage (including the same inheritance rights and powers of attorney).

    I agree, and this is not recognised federally or in most of Australias states.

    5. Now to the nub of the matter. The central problem I have vis-à-vis gay marriage regards appellation of the term “marriage”. I don't think marriage has to be between a man and a woman, but it does have to result in a partnership between a husband and a wife. Without arriving at this distinction, marriage, as a term, looses its most fundamental meaning.

    I disagree, the traditional roles played by husband and wife are extinct and marriage is no longer about this, there are plenty of couples where the wife is far more of a husband and the husband is far more of a wife. Equally same-sex couples can and do play these stereotypical roles in a relationship.

    6. I don't even care whether the marriage union is strictly between humans or not. If you want to marry a tree, go and do it. (I understand that this is done in some parts of India where the younger brothers are prohibited from marrying until all their older brothers have already married. If a younger brother finds someone to marry before their older brother, the older brother will be married to a tree so that the younger is free to marry without offending whichever of the Hindu gods is responsible for this bit of tradition.) However, it is clear in such an instance, which is the husband and which is the wife.

    You appear to believe a tree fits the role of wife more than another man or woman can.

    7. The other thing is that, if marriage is an institution 'owned' by the social totality rather than any specific groups, and if recognition of its scope is a mandatory legal obligation, it’s important that any changes to it must have general assent. Gay marriage simply doesn't have this level of assent, and it is false to claim that this is purely a result of homophobia (although this is frequently a cause).

    I believe gay marriage does have majority support.

    8. Powers of linguistic discrimination do not necessarily militate against substantive equality if the distinction is purely nominal (which it is, if civil partnerships are seriously being offered). Resistance in this instance is motivated by a concern for the integrity of public language, and unwillingness to be coerced into using a vocabulary rendered illogical. Ultimately it’s an argument against social control.

    The traditional aspects of marriage you seek to protect through your stance are no longer considered important aspects of marriage. Marriage is no longer about stereotypical roles or property. The general opinion of the public would state the main reasons for marriage are a) love and b) commitment. Marriage has evolved and hence so has its definition.

    9. If absolute equality is the aim behind the gay-marriage movement, I’d prefer to accommodate them in this aim by seeing marriage abolished outright in preference of civil partnerships for everyone. (I don’t expect this is going to happen, but it makes more sense to me.)

    Obviously not going to happen, you seem adament about preserving linguistic traditions but would be happy to be rid of a tradition in its entirety. Why is one form of tradition so important to you but other forms not?
     
     Top
  13. Marriage is a three way contract between the couple , the state and the church

    It is an outdated antiquated institution

    However in saying this I still hold it to be a sacred right that is steeped in our tradition and evolution as a society and thus I do not agree to gay marriage recognition by the church at all.

    I will say however that that I do not mind if the state recognises for legalities " same sex unions" I will however demonstrate and voice my objections to the word marriage being used to describe same sex unions.
     
     Top
  14. What's it got to do with the Church???

    I was married in a registry office in the UK. If I remember rightly there's no mention of God/Church at all. Now I think of it it's not allowed in a civil ceremony there...

    It's a both an emotional statement and a legal "contract" that makes you "family" and not just two individuals.

    I see no reason why the gays can't have some of that, and I fail to see what it got to do with the church at all...
     
     Top
  15. Your a heathen Stigger :)
     
     Top
  16. I think as long as we continue to use the "as long as it's not called 'marriage'" line - we perpetuate the discrimination.
     
     Top
  17. If gay people want legalised prostition, let em have it.
     
     Top
  18. Not any more its not, If your wife says no to sex and you force her, Its ****,
     
     Top
  19. Touché!
     
     Top
  20. And its my right to ask him why he holds it ;).

    In so far as we have rights in Australia, anyway.

    I'm of the opinion that marriage and law related unions should be separated:

    If I want to be legally bound to another person, I'll sign some papers and be done with it. That really isn't marriage -in my mind, anyway- and the word should not be used in the relevant legislature.

    If I want to be spiritually bound to another person, I will carry out the ritual of my(/our) choosing. This should be completely irrelevant to any government body (assuming no mass human sacrifices are involved :p).

    Not that I see myself taking either option, since I'm thoroughly disinclined towards the first, and the second would not be done lightly.


    Sidenote: By my memory, registration of marriages was only introduced in England a few centuries ago, due to men kidnapping women of station and getting a priest to marry them, thus bringing them into the woman's family and whatever inheritance she may be entitled to.
     
     Top