Gay Marriage In Australia

[Samael]

A topic like this should -not- be approached from a biological angle, since we, as humans, have already pretty much decoupled us from these necessities.
It would be better to approach it from a societal point of view, and if, by allowing gay couples to marry, we're creating advantages for our society.

*shakes magic 8-ball*
"Yes."

The point Oniya brought up being just one of many advantages that comes with it.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The point Oniya brought up is moot because that point does not readily exist.  Arguing that same-sex marriage would provide a stable household for children that many states will not let same-sex couples adopt does not make sense.  The two issues, while dealing with same-sex couples, are not the same and are exclusive to each other.  Magic eight ball aside there does not seem to be anyone pushing forth these great societal advantages.

As for the infertile couples, the state can hardly perform definitive studies on a couples fertility before marriage.  The percentage of couples that are infertile is quite low compared to those that are not.  Hence the benefit of the doubt alleviates much testing, headache, and saves a lot of money.  Elderly couples do participate in the raising of children, both their own as they have children later in life and their grand children.  Among certain populations the grandparents are considered the primary care givers. 

And why should same-sex couples be given the “sacred” institution of marriage.  From your previous comments the only real advantage that you might get is the tax break.  That hardly gives marriage the sacred standing you mentioned.

[Oniya]

And for those people that specifically choose not to have kids?  They may not be infertile from a medical standpoint, but they still have no desire to produce a child.  Should we require that people who opt to get married sign papers saying that they intend to at least try to have kids?

As for advantages - they get the automatic assumption of inheritance and rights to visitation of their loved ones in the hospital.  They don't have to fill out additional forms once they have a marriage certificate.

[Rinzler]

Britian declared it legal as a moral good, that marriage is by its very nature a positive thing for the society therefore allowed gays to marry. They did not as a society implode. And they are a very conservative and moral people as a rule just in their actions.

So why is it a big deal just do it.

;D

Well, a previous poster has already mentioned that there isn't gay marriage in the strictest sense of the term in the UK. However, as for us being a 'conservative and moral' people: Oh my dear! Oh, I would just love to take you out to Portsmouth on a Friday night! Oh my lady, but you have made me chuckle...

[consortium11]

;D

Well, a previous poster has already mentioned that there isn't gay marriage in the strictest sense of the term in the UK. However, as for us being a 'conservative and moral' people: Oh my dear! Oh, I would just love to take you out to Portsmouth on a Friday night! Oh my lady, but you have made me chuckle...

I haven't found Portsmouth that bad... even when the ships are in.

Newcastle on the other hand.

Jebus Newcastle...

[Rinzler]

I haven't found Portsmouth that bad... even when the ships are in.

Newcastle on the other hand.

Jebus Newcastle...

Did you go anywhere near the environs of Somers Town?

One does not simply walk into Mordor Somers Town. Its black gates tower blocks are guarded by more than just orcs chavs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye pissed-up dickheads is are ever watchful wrathful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume. Not with ten thousand men could you do this. It is folly.

[consortium11]

No, spent most of my time in the "nightlife" districts instead.

/off-topic

[Pumpkin Seeds]

An advantage to the person, not the state.  Such an advantage can be gained by, as we both pointed out earlier, a little forethought in filling out free paperwork.  Even straight couples are asked to fill out such paperwork to clarify succession and who has certain privileges.  As for the choice of not having children, compare that to the whole of married couples.  Also, if the perks were being taken away I’m sure they might change their minds suddenly. 

[Oniya]

Change their minds suddenly about marrying?  I rather doubt that.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

No, change their minds about what they say to the government.

[Caela]

Forgetting kids, inheritance, taxes, etc. the simple fact of the matter is that a marriage license is a contract between two consenting adults. To say that two consenting adults (of any gender mix you like) cannot sign a contract with each other is to make them lesser beings under the law. If you want people to be equal under the law then you can't say that Person's A&B are fit to sign said contract, but Persons C&D aren't just because you don't like their gender mix.

At the very bottom of it, denying any couple the right to share in the joys (and sometimes miseries) that come with being married is supporting and institutionalized legal inequality and would be no different than if you exchanged gender for race and said whites, blacks, asians, jews, etc shouldn't be allowed to marry.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well taking that perspective, in essence, you are saying that same sex couples are missing out on the joys of entering into a contract.  The joys of entering into a relationship similar to the one that most people have with their cell phone company.  Same-sex couples can still be together, enjoy each other’s company, live under the same roof and enjoy all the joys of marriage.  Certainly they can even have weddings that do not involve the contract of marriage.  I think at this point in the discussion it is safe to put aside the notion that same sex couples are seeking the joy of marriage and are seeking instead the legal benefits and access to one another.

If a contract is established for a particular purpose, then not allowing people incapable of fulfilling the contracts purpose is not immoral or illegal.  The question is simply can same-sex couples perform this task, no.  Well then the contract designed around that task and provision is denied to them.

[Oniya]

The thing is, I don't believe that the 'purpose of the [marriage] contract' is to have kids.

The standard 'form' is:  Priest: "Do you take ___ as your lawful wife/husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and cherish until death do you part?"

Nothing about kids there, and nothing that a homosexual couple could not fulfill.

[Rinzler]

Besides which, if a marriage contract made offspring a necessary criteria, then where would that leave a couple where one or both of the partners is infertile? Or an elderly couple, for instance. Or a couple that just might want to be together without having kids.

You'd be denying a hell of a lot of people, both gay and straight, the right to legally marry on that particular basis.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Certainly, but then why would they require tax incentives to have such a vow ?

Also, many different religions have different vows in their ceremonies.  I am sure that the Catholics would argue that the purpose of marriage is to produce children.  Most religions, to my understanding, do make that argument.

DeMalachine, please see previous posts where those topics were covered.

[Rinzler]

^^ I did, Pumpkin, it's just that you come across as being a little allusive on the subject. Are you saying that the tax-breaks are there to facilitate setting up a family? And that your position is that it is somehow unfair that people who have no chance of starting a family should be entitled to those breaks?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Ah, a more specific question and critique then.

In regards to an infertile couple, the situation is easy.  There is simply no way to guarantee that a person is truly infertile unless there is some trauma or damage to the organs in question.  This would be testicular removal or a hysterectomy.  Determining if a woman or man is infertile without such trauma is exceedingly difficult, expensive and invasive.  There is simply no way to make that determination readily.  So having that requirement is impractical since the percentage is small to begin with and the cost of making the determination expensive and inconclusive at best.

The elderly couple could be seen as more complex, but often times the elderly do have children still.  Statistically married couples also take care of grand children and are often the primary care givers in some households.  Elderly can also be seen as “back-up” parents.  Having a solid, reinforced family structure among the grandparents can be seen as important in this service to raising productive citizens.

A couple that wants to be married without children is also a possibility.  Still, their existence is smaller and their stance subject to the whims of their person.  As I pointed out, if the government began walking around stating they would remove the tax breaks on marriage or the rights of the married partner to their spouse on those couples not wanting children, I’m sure many would simply say they wanted one to keep their benefits.  This makes screening for that case impractical and inconclusive.

[Oniya]

Certainly, but then why would they require tax incentives to have such a vow ?

Also, many different religions have different vows in their ceremonies.  I am sure that the Catholics would argue that the purpose of marriage is to produce children.  Most religions, to my understanding, do make that argument.

DeMalachine, please see previous posts where those topics were covered.

I've gone through all the articles here and all the vows here.  While I can't claim this to be an exhaustive list of vows, I'd certainly say it's a representative sample.  Other than ideas for including existing children in a wedding ceremony, I saw nothing that spoke to the production of children - not even a 'go forth and multiply'.  On the flip side, every vow seemed to speak towards the intent to share each other's lives, to grow in love, and to support each other against adversity.

[Rinzler]

Ah, a more specific question and critique then.

In regards to an infertile couple, the situation is easy.  There is simply no way to guarantee that a person is truly infertile unless there is some trauma or damage to the organs in question.  This would be testicular removal or a hysterectomy.  Determining if a woman or man is infertile without such trauma is exceedingly difficult, expensive and invasive.  There is simply no way to make that determination readily.  So having that requirement is impractical since the percentage is small to begin with and the cost of making the determination expensive and inconclusive at best.

The elderly couple could be seen as more complex, but often times the elderly do have children still.  Statistically married couples also take care of grand children and are often the primary care givers in some households.  Elderly can also be seen as “back-up” parents.  Having a solid, reinforced family structure among the grandparents can be seen as important in this service to raising productive citizens.

A couple that wants to be married without children is also a possibility.  Still, their existence is smaller and their stance subject to the whims of their person.  As I pointed out, if the government began walking around stating they would remove the tax breaks on marriage or the rights of the married partner to their spouse on those couples not wanting children, I’m sure many would simply say they wanted one to keep their benefits.  This makes screening for that case impractical and inconclusive.

Umm...okay. But going with what you appear to be saying - that it is more 'just' that a couple even remotely capable of having children should have the tax entitlements that come with marriage - then what about a scenario that allowed the same tax-breaks for a gay couple who made it clear they would like to adopt children? Or indeed a lesbian couple who would be happy to start a family via a sperm donor? That seems every bit as reasonable to me - if indeed the basis were such that tax breaks were only offered on the potential to start a family.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

As has been pointed out at the beginning of the discussion, same-sex couples adopting is a separate issue.  The two issues are exclusive of one another.  Also, with a woman being impregnated by a sperm donor there is no stipulation that a straight woman gets tax incentives if she does so.  Why then would it be fair to grant those tax breaks to a lesbian?  Also that doesn’t seem fair to let lesbians get married because they are women and have sperm donors whereas male same-sex couples cannot.

And if children were not the point of marriage, then why would the Catholic Church grant annulments based on the inability to copulate.  Also, at one time divorces were only granted in the case of a woman not having male children.  Many of those vows were also written for couples in arranged marriages where I hardly think the point was for them to love each other and grow together as a couple.  All that aside, I still do not see how a same-sex couple is incapable of having these emotions and experiences if they do not possess a legal contract. 

[Caela]

Well taking that perspective, in essence, you are saying that same sex couples are missing out on the joys of entering into a contract.  The joys of entering into a relationship similar to the one that most people have with their cell phone company.  Same-sex couples can still be together, enjoy each other’s company, live under the same roof and enjoy all the joys of marriage.  Certainly they can even have weddings that do not involve the contract of marriage.  I think at this point in the discussion it is safe to put aside the notion that same sex couples are seeking the joy of marriage and are seeking instead the legal benefits and access to one another.

If a contract is established for a particular purpose, then not allowing people incapable of fulfilling the contracts purpose is not immoral or illegal.  The question is simply can same-sex couples perform this task, no.  Well then the contract designed around that task and provision is denied to them.

There is nothing in a marriage contract that states it is being signed for the "particular purpose" of creating and raising children. Even if there were, in this day and age there is nothing to stop a homosexual couple from doing so. Lesbians can seek out sperm donors and gay men can seek out surrogates, both a means of propagating their own genetic code since that seems to be what you're so hung up on. Plenty of homosexual couple want families.

Being as stuck on kids as you are, you sidestepped the main point of my comment entirely, that people are meant to be equal under the law, and denying any mentally competent person the right to enter into a contractual agreement with another competent person makes them, inherently, unequal in the eyes of the law.

Saying a homosexual couple can't sign a binding legal contract together is no different than laws that used to prohibit couple of different ethnicities from doing so. All it really says is, "You make us uncomfortable so we're going to view you as lesser than until you live the way we want you to." Of course the argument then was that it would be better for children of such couples NOT to be born at all not that they couldn't have them, but it's just as specious and bigoted now as it was in the past.

[Tamhansen]

There is nothing in a marriage contract that states it is being signed for the "particular purpose" of creating and raising children. Even if there were, in this day and age there is nothing to stop a homosexual couple from doing so. Lesbians can seek out sperm donors and gay men can seek out surrogates, both a means of propagating their own genetic code since that seems to be what you're so hung up on. Plenty of homosexual couple want families.

Being as stuck on kids as you are, you sidestepped the main point of my comment entirely, that people are meant to be equal under the law, and denying any mentally competent person the right to enter into a contractual agreement with another competent person makes them, inherently, unequal in the eyes of the law.

Saying a homosexual couple can't sign a binding legal contract together is no different than laws that used to prohibit couple of different ethnicities from doing so. All it really says is, "You make us uncomfortable so we're going to view you as lesser than until you live the way we want you to." Of course the argument then was that it would be better for children of such couples NOT to be born at all not that they couldn't have them, but it's just as specious and bigoted now as it was in the past.

In your last sentence you used specious. Do you consider gay people a different species?

But more to the point. You are right, when considering marriage purely as the legal contract, there is no objective reason for gay or lesbian couples to be denied. Now i do not argue they should not be allowed to marry, but if it was just this contract, then what would be the benefit.

[Oniya]

In your last sentence you used specious. Do you consider gay people a different species?

From M-W.com:
Definition of SPECIOUS
1  obsolete : showy
2  having deceptive attraction or allure
3  having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic <specious reasoning>
— spe·cious·ly adverb
— spe·cious·ness noun

Examples of SPECIOUS

    He justified his actions with specious reasoning.
    <a specious argument that really does not stand up under close examination>

Synonyms: beguiling, deceitful, deceiving, deluding, delusive, delusory, fallacious, false, misleading, deceptive
Antonyms: aboveboard, forthright, nondeceptive, straightforward

[Tamhansen]

Ok i stand corrected. Got it confused with specieous, which is apparently the word for discriminating based on species, and not specious

[Caela]

In your last sentence you used specious. Do you consider gay people a different species?

But more to the point. You are right, when considering marriage purely as the legal contract, there is no objective reason for gay or lesbian couples to be denied. Now i do not argue they should not be allowed to marry, but if it was just this contract, then what would be the benefit.

When you get down to the nitty gritty of it, it really IS just this legal contract and the legal rights that go with it. You can't (and shouldn't) force any religion to try and recognize or perform any marriage they feel is against their religious tenets (and differing religious leaders turn straight people away every day if they don't meet their criteria) but for the legal portion of the argument it does simply come down to talking about two, consenting, legal, adults signing a contract with each other.

As to the benefits I would that was clear enough. They deserve the same rights and benefits of any married couple. Tax burdens and expemptions, the right to speak for your spouse definitively in a medical emergency, the right to put your spouse on your insurance etc. Yes I know some of these can be accomplished with things like a Living Will and a Durable Power of Attorney but let's be realistic here, "Separate but Equal" is a line of crap no matter what the issue at hand is, and there are place where a Court would be more than happy to throw out those documents in favor of some family member who hasn't talked to someone in years (because they're gay no less!) rather than allow the gay partner to hold such power.

As I said before, it is my personal belief that denying homosexuals the same rights as straight people is no different than denying someone their rights based on gender or race. The only difference is that it is still too widely acceptable, IMO, to openly discriminate against them while it's no longer socially, or legally, acceptable to do so based on gender or race. In my eyes it's nothing short of modern day bigotry.