SSM postal vote

[ken777]

Before deciding how you will vote in this plebiscite, I would encourage you to read Paul Kelly's article in 'The Australian'

"Rights clash looms in same-sex debate"

 

[Shemjaza]

Before deciding how you will vote in this plebiscite, I would encourage you to read Paul Kelly's article in 'The Australian'

"Rights clash looms in same-sex debate"

The Australian doesn't let people read its articles online without a subscription.

Can you summarise the points and arguments?

 

[ken777]

The Australian doesn't let people read its articles online without a subscription.

Can you summarise the points and arguments?

I do not have a subscription and I was able to read it online. The Australian only blocks repeated views.

The article is available on other sites by googling the title of the article. (eg, Australian Politics )

The article addresses the consequences of legalizing ssm without providing religious protections for individuals, churches, schools, charitable organizations, businesses, etc.

 

[AntiCow]

A lot of articles from the "no" side focus on the risk to free speech, freedom of religion and so forth. While these are important, I feel that they are peripheral to the subject at hand.

The pro-SSM side starts with this question: What are the rights of gays and lesbians?

The "no" side starts with this question: Why does marriage exist? What is marriage for?

If you feel the two sides are talking past each other, that is why. They are coming from completely different starting points.

 

[AntiCow]

If you want to convince a "no" person to vote yes, start by formulating why marriage exists and what it is for, and why gay marriage is compatible with that understanding.

Do you want to convince a "yes" person to vote no? Perhaps by asking these questions - what is a right? On what basis does one group have a right but not another? If "love is love" - isn't government-regulated love just a little creepy? Why is government-defined love a human right?

 

[Shemjaza]

Given that one side of the discussion isn't allowed to support there position, this is a very difficult discussion to have on this board.

So I'll do my best to avoid breaking forum rules.

I think that "yes" side is primarily about applying the rules and advantages that apply to opposite sex partnerships and families, to same sex partnerships and families.

Many people have differing opinions of the purpose of marriage, but unless those rules are universally applicable (and enforced), I don't think any of them are reasonable barriers to same sex couples having legal recognition for their relationships.

Same sex couples and same sex parented families already exist and won't go away because the "no" wins, or if the Liberal government stays in power, so I think they deserve the same civil advantages as the rest of us.

 

[AntiCow]

I didn't know that only one side is allowed to argue on this forum. I don't post here very often. So I won't try to start a massive debate, but I'll make a couple of points.

"Many people have differing opinions of the purpose of marriage, but unless those rules are universally applicable (and enforced)"

Why does the purpose of marriage need to be enforced? Marriage is not a government invention like a tax break, after all.

Why are rights only to be extended for gays and lesbians? There are many other groups that would also like the same rights. They are being ignored - why?

If there is any government definition of marriage, there will always be some groups that are excluded. Therefore any definition constitutes discrimination against such groups.

I think that if pro-SSM groups understood their own arguments, they would campaign for the end of any government definition of marriage.

 

[Shemjaza]

I didn't know that only one side is allowed to argue on this forum. I don't post here very often. So I won't try to start a massive debate, but I'll make a couple of points.

Homosexuality isn't allowed to be promoted on Christian Forums.

"Many people have differing opinions of the purpose of marriage, but unless those rules are universally applicable (and enforced)"

Why does the purpose of marriage need to be enforced? Marriage is not a government invention like a tax break, after all.

But legal marriage is an invention like a tax break. No legal or societal changes to marriage will change the individual religious and personal convictions people and groups have about marriage, but the legal entity supported by the legal government of Australia is a different thing.

My point is that if you have a legal barrier to gay and lesbian people getting married you cannot use a justification that doesn't apply to all straight people who can get married.

Why are rights only to be extended for gays and lesbians? There are many other groups that would also like the same rights. They are being ignored - why?

What groups?

As I said before gays and lesbians already constitute couples and families who don't have the same support from the government, and the "yes" people feel they should have it.

If there is any government definition of marriage, there will always be some groups that are excluded. Therefore any definition constitutes discrimination against such groups.

I agree, which is why any such discrimination should be examined to see if it is reasonable. Do you have any examples you think are as reasonable as existing homosexual couples getting legal recognition?

We don't allow small children or the blind to have a drivers licence, but there are justifications for that.

We do allow gays and lesbians to have families, but do not allow them to be married and I think the "no" people need to present an argument for that.

I think that if pro-SSM groups understood their own arguments, they would campaign for the end of any government definition of marriage.

I disagree.

The "no" campaign think that marriage is good and some people should do it. People in the "yes" campaign think that marriage is good and more people should be able to do it.

 

[AntiCow]

"What groups?"

Polygamists, polyamorists, bigamists, and that's just for starters.

 

[Shemjaza]

"What groups?"

Polygamists, polyamorists, bigamists, and that's just for starters.

Those are much more complicated to change in the legal system.

But then again, there are already families with those structures, and they don't get protected, I don't see why we shouldn't look into it.

 

[ken777]

The biological, historical, cultural, & religious aspects of heterosexual marriage make it unique.

The state's primary interest in marriage is to promote & protect the optimal environment for raising the next generation. Same sex couples raise children - so do single parents, as well as a variety of other domestic arrangements - but the optimal environment for a child is with his biological mother & father. This makes heterosexual marriage a social institution which needs to be respected & preserved.

 

[Shemjaza]

The biological, historical, cultural, & religious aspects of heterosexual marriage make it unique.

The state's primary interest in marriage is to promote & protect the optimal environment for raising the next generation. Same sex couples raise children - so do single parents, as well as a variety of other domestic arrangements - but the optimal environment for a child is with his biological mother & father. This makes heterosexual marriage a social institution which needs to be respected & preserved.

Except there is no presumption of marriage being limited to fertile couples planning on having children.

There is no limitation on the old, the infertile or people planning on adopting children.

Both adoptive parents and homosexual parents (or guardians if you prefer) and their children would benefit from the support and systems in place for married couples in the secular laws of our society.

If you are appealing to history, where do you stand on poly marriage? There certainly is historical precedent for it both in and outside the bible.

 

[ken777]

Except there is no presumption of marriage being limited to fertile couples planning on having children.

There is no limitation on the old, the infertile or people planning on adopting children.

Both adoptive parents and homosexual parents (or guardians if you prefer) and their children would benefit from the support and systems in place for married couples in the secular laws of our society.

If you are appealing to history, where do you stand on poly marriage? There certainly is historical precedent for it both in and outside the bible.

Heterosexual marriage certainly does fulfill the role of procreation in society, and two biological parents is the optimal environment for raising children. Exceptions do not negate this principle.

The history of Christian western civilization has always been based on one man and one woman.

 

[AntiCow]

Why does marriage exist and what is it for?
- Sex exists to bring forth children.
- Sexual attraction exists to make people want to have sex, thus bringing forth children.
- Monogamy exists because children take a lot of time and effort to raise.
- Marriage is the institutionalisation of monogamy.
- Romantic love exists so that people would want to take on the massive commitment that marriage is.

This view gives the best explanation of why and how all these things work together.

If marriage is really about love and has nothing to do with children, why should love lead to marriage specifically? Why should romantic love exist at all?

 

[Shemjaza]

Heterosexual marriage certainly does fulfill the role of procreation in society, and two biological parents is the optimal environment for raising children. Exceptions do not negate this principle.

No one is attempting to negate the principle, merely to allow appropriate exceptions that match the realities of our society. Especially when it can be demonstrated that many such exceptions are present and supported already.

Marriage may serve a purpose in our society of creating a stable environment to create and raise children, but that is by no means its only purpose. It is also an important social and support bond for monogamous couples to care for and have their relationship recognised by society.

Our society benefits greatly from the structure of families even if there are no children present. Couples are there to look after one another as the first point of society and we have built a number of support structures to encourage this.

The history of Christian western civilization has always been based on one man and one woman.

I agree. However, your need to qualify it with "western" demonstrates that change and variation are happen to structures traditions and societies.

Not allowing homosexual couples the privileges and recognition of marriage doesn't make them no longer homosexual, it merely limits their support form a secualar institution.

Why does marriage exist and what is it for?
- Sex exists to bring forth children.
- Sexual attraction exists to make people want to have sex, thus bringing forth children.
- Monogamy exists because children take a lot of time and effort to raise.
- Marriage is the institutionalisation of monogamy.
- Romantic love exists so that people would want to take on the massive commitment that marriage is.

This view gives the best explanation of why and how all these things work together.

If marriage is really about love and has nothing to do with children, why should love lead to marriage specifically? Why should romantic love exist at all?

I general I agree with your premises, but it doesn't follow that the possible net purpose should bind how the system is put in place.

Homosexual people (like many heterosexual people) may have all the urges and needs that you describe without the possibility of having children unassisted. So why shouldn't they also have marriage?


I'm very dubious about some people asserting that marriage is unavoidably linked to child rearing in all cases. I very much doubt that you would scoff at the concept of two middle aged Christians wanting to marry and share their lives, despite being unable to have natural children.

I'm also unsure how people justify the banning of homosexual marriage on grounds of not being able to naturally bear children, when homosexual couples may already have children through other means.

 

[ken777]

As Christians we need to support God's ordained plan for humankind.

 

[Shemjaza]

As Christians we need to support God's ordained plan for humankind.

Support, or enforce?

 

[ken777]

Support, or enforce?

Support God's law as well as the law of the nation.

If the law is changed, it will be enforced.

 

[Shemjaza]

Support God's law as well as the law of the nation.

So, you feel God's law should be the law of the nation, despite people not agreeing?

 

[ken777]

So, you feel God's law should be the law of the nation, despite people not agreeing?

If there is a God - as I believe there is - His plan is unfolding, even to the introduction of ungodly laws. I have some understanding of God's laws, I do not always understand His will however. Possibly the legalizing of ssm is in His will, even as the crucifixion of Jesus was in His will.