SSM postal vote

[Shemjaza]

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.

That certainly makes internal sense.

But I'm more curious about understanding and examining other Australian's justifications for voting YES or NO.

 

[AntiCow]

Hi Shemjaza,

I was talking about what marriage is, not what the law about marriage should be. These are separate questions; I think we agree on that much.

Nevertheless SSM rhetoric clearly takes the view that marriage is about love rather than children. I've heard people say that marriage has nothing at all to do with children. This is clearly false - thus the SSM movement bases itself on a falsehood.

Almost certainly the SSM movement wouldn't have gotten off the ground otherwise, because marriage being about children means that there is almost no practical benefit for SS couples in getting married. (Generally speaking.)

Which explains why most gays and lesbians throughout history, before the modern debate started, showed no interest in getting married.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hi Shemjaza,

I was talking about what marriage is, not what the law about marriage should be. These are separate questions; I think we agree on that much.

Nevertheless SSM rhetoric clearly takes the view that marriage is about love rather than children. I've heard people say that marriage has nothing at all to do with children. This is clearly false - thus the SSM movement bases itself on a falsehood.

Almost certainly the SSM movement wouldn't have gotten off the ground otherwise, because marriage being about children means that there is almost no practical benefit for SS couples in getting married. (Generally speaking.)

Which explains why most gays and lesbians throughout history, before the modern debate started, showed no interest in getting married.

I disagree. However children might be a goal of marriage for a culture (or God if you believe), love and commitment are necessary for a couple to get married and having children is not.

I don't think you can take historical behavior of same sex attracted people as separate from being declared as criminals, insane or both. Obviously the right to marry wasn't considerable when the right to even have a sexual relationships wasn't available.

 

[ken777]

But I'm more curious about understanding and examining other Australian's justifications for voting YES or NO.

In The Australian yesterday, John Howard makes the argument that individuals, schools, businesses, charities & churches will suffer a diminution of their rights if ssm is legalized ("Howard kickstarts the No case").

Whenever I have argued for such protections on the ABC News facebook page, I have been subjected to nasty personal attacks which confirms my belief that the agenda is to oppose all protections for conscience & belief.

Some who are opposed to ssm are nevertheless voting Yes because they think a Liberal bill will offer more protections than a Labor-Green bill.

The issue of promoting & protecting the optimal environment for raising children is obviously an important factor for many people who will be voting No.

 

[AntiCow]

I disagree. However children might be a goal of marriage for a culture (or God if you believe), love and commitment are necessary for a couple to get married and having children is not.

I don't think you can take historical behavior of same sex attracted people as separate from being declared as criminals, insane or both. Obviously the right to marry wasn't considerable when the right to even have a sexual relationships wasn't available.

I've been talking about why marriage exists as an institution and why it is such a constant throughout human history, not why individual couples get married, or what a given culture might think, so there is no contradiction here.

Also re gays and lesbians in the past: SSM has been very rare throughout history, and gays and lesbians themselves have shown no interest in the idea, even in gay friendly countries. Ancient Greece for example was arguably the gayest place that ever was, yet even they didn't have gay marriage.

 

[FireDragon76]

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?.

Speculation vs. concrete needs of human beings. As a Lutheran, it is not a tough call for me- I come down on the side of valuing people over ideas.

Also re gays and lesbians in the past: SSM has been very rare throughout history, and gays and lesbians themselves have shown no interest in the idea, even in gay friendly countries. Ancient Greece for example was arguably the gayest place that ever was, yet even they didn't have gay marriage.

This is a blatantly homophobic statement and untrue, and ignorant of the culture of ancient Greece.

 

[ken777]

I was wondering how long it would take the word "homophobic" to appear.

 

[Shemjaza]

In The Australian yesterday, John Howard makes the argument that individuals, schools, businesses, charities & churches will suffer a diminution of their rights if ssm is legalized ("Howard kickstarts the No case").

Whenever I have argued for such protections on the ABC News facebook page, I have been subjected to nasty personal attacks which confirms my belief that the agenda is to oppose all protections for conscience & belief.

Some who are opposed to ssm are nevertheless voting Yes because they think a Liberal bill will offer more protections than a Labor-Green bill.

The issue of promoting & protecting the optimal environment for raising children is obviously an important factor for many people who will be voting No.

Can you describe exactly how you think it's reasonable to have different protections for homosexual people rather then religious or racial groups?

Some examples of problems happening because homosexual people can get married and have the accompanying protections?

I've been talking about why marriage exists as an institution and why it is such a constant throughout human history, not why individual couples get married, or what a given culture might think, so there is no contradiction here.

Also re gays and lesbians in the past: SSM has been very rare throughout history, and gays and lesbians themselves have shown no interest in the idea, even in gay friendly countries. Ancient Greece for example was arguably the gayest place that ever was, yet even they didn't have gay marriage.

It's all well and good to talk about big picture purposes, but if it doesn't actually cover the specifics it isn't a reasonable rule to apply only to homosexual people.

Regardless of whether or not homosexual people in history were interested in marriage, the modern day ones clearly are.

 

[ken777]

Can you describe exactly how you think it's reasonable to have different protections for homosexual people rather then religious or racial groups?

Homosexuals currently have the same protections as religious & racial groups. SSM will change that. All the high profile businesses that have been prosecuted in other countries, happily served homosexual customers. However, they had a religious objection to providing service for a same sex wedding.

Some examples of problems happening because homosexual people can get married and have the accompanying protections?

A business should be able to decline service for an activity or event that is contrary to their ethical or religious beliefs. You probably know that some advertising agencies have declined to make ads for religious groups supporting the No campaign.

An 18 year old woman is trying to pay her way through university by making & decorating special occasion cakes at which she is an expert. She is now wondering when ssm is legalized if she will continue to place an ad on the community noticeboard at the local shopping centre including the word "weddings". Even if she is not prosecuted, she, like everyone else in similar situations, would have to live with this threat hanging over her.

The OP in this thread links to an article that outlines some of the ramifications of ssm for people whose involvement in a ss wedding is a violation of their faith.

 

[Shemjaza]

Homosexuals currently have the same protections as religious & racial groups. SSM will change that. All the high profile businesses that have been prosecuted in other countries, happily served homosexual customers. However, they had a religious objection to providing service for a same sex wedding.

The point is that you currently can't refuse service due to religion or race. For example a wedding cake maker can't say: "No I don't support the Catholic church so don't recognise their weddings."
Nor can a racist celebrant refuse service to a couple of different races.

I believe that homosexual people deserve that same protection.

Churches have always been private clubs and so can control which members can and can't get married in their particular.

A business should be able to decline service for an activity or event that is contrary to their ethical or religious beliefs. You probably know that some advertising agencies have declined to make ads for religious groups supporting the No campaign.

An 18 year old woman is trying to pay her way through university by making & decorating special occasion cakes at which she is an expert. She is now wondering when ssm is legalized if she will continue to place an ad on the community noticeboard at the local shopping centre including the word "weddings". Even if she is not prosecuted, she, like everyone else in similar situations, would have to live with this threat hanging over her.

The OP in this thread links to an article that outlines some of the ramifications of ssm for people whose involvement in a ss wedding is a violation of their faith.

So in case of legislation that doesn't yet exist, you are happy for the personal and religious convictions of other who support SS marriage to not have support from the secular government.

 

[ken777]

The point is that you currently can't refuse service due to religion or race. For example a wedding cake maker can't say: "No I don't support the Catholic church so don't recognise their weddings."
Nor can a racist celebrant refuse service to a couple of different races.
I believe that homosexual people deserve that same protection.

And that is the argument that has been used overseas to prosecute and fine businesses, and will be used here when ssm is legalized.

It refuses to acknowledge the conflict for a Biblical Christian for whom marriage is a deeply held religious belief. No one is arguing for the right not to serve homosexual customers, but only for an exemption in the case of marriage which for the entire history of Christianity has represented the union of Christ and the Church.

In a case in New Mexico, a couple were fined for declining to photograph a ss wedding. One of the Justices stated: "The Huguenins are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives."

So the rights of religious people will be made subservient to the rights of homosexuals. Whether you think this is a good thing or not, it cannot be denied.

So in case of legislation that doesn't yet exist, you are happy for the personal and religious convictions of other who support SS marriage to not have support from the secular government.

Not sure I understand your thought here.
My position is that there is a conflict between traditional religious belief and ssm, and therefore the legal rights of both parties should be respected. This is the situation being played out before the US Supreme Court.
DOJ files brief on behalf of baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple

 

[AntiCow]

It's all well and good to talk about big picture purposes, but if it doesn't actually cover the specifics it isn't a reasonable rule to apply only to homosexual people.

Regardless of whether or not homosexual people in history were interested in marriage, the modern day ones clearly are.

A heart surgeon who doesn't understand that hearts are for pumping blood may make bad decisions. So it is with us; if we don't understand what marriage is for, we will make bad decisions about marriage.

But I've talked long enough about that, and you raise an excellent point - it is true that gays and lesbians want SSM and I can hardly deny it. So what should the law about marriage be? As I see it there are 3 options.

1. Straight Only. (No legal marriage for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, polygamists, polyamorists etc etc)

This position has two advantages: it is based on the reality of what marriage is. Plus it is motivated by the protection of children. Always a good thing.

Disadvantage: The law is a blunt instrument so this is not the best option for gays, polygamists and other edge cases.

2. Straight + Gay Only. (No legal marriage for bisexuals, polygamists, polyamorists etc etc)

Advantages: People want it.

Disadvantages: Not based on reality but rather on feelings, plus a view about marriage that is simply wrong. Not the best option for polygamists, polyamorists etc etc, but still calls itself "marriage equality".

3. No legal definition of marriage

Advantages: Flexibility for people to do as they like. Gives LGBT all the equality they could reasonably want. Not based on a lie.

Disadvantages: None.

So there you have it. If you want equal rights for LBGT, no legal definition of marriage is a far, far better option than SSM.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

The issue that I have in this debate is my 6 year old son. He come home and tells me every few weeks that people tell him it is ok for him to marry a man. God does not want that, neither do I as a father. Vote No.

 

[ken777]

The issue that I have in this debate is my 6 year old son. He come home and tells me every few weeks that people tell him it is ok for him to marry a man. God does not want that, neither do I as a father. Vote No.

Do they use the Safe Schools program at your son's school?

 

[Breve]

Someone said here that marriage is the institutionalization of monogamy. Succinct way to put it. Elephant in the room is that gay men don't do monogamy particularly well. So they want the public recognition of marriage but in private don't want to act married. Huh? Perhaps SSM should only be granted to lesbian couples!

Oh and please don't yell at me for being mean spirited about this... I've had many gay male friends and I've been told more than I wanted to hear about their arrangements. Their business of course but it does make me think they're missing the whole point of marriage. It's not just a big party and public commitment of the love- with a piece of paper making it official- it's about the lifetime commitment of fidelity.

Sure, yes plenty of straight couples get that wrong and mess up. We're all hypocrites at times, but honestly what makes gay couples think they can do better?

It would be better for everyone if government kept out of it all together.

 

[ken777]

 

[Shemjaza]

And that is the argument that has been used overseas to prosecute and fine businesses, and will be used here when ssm is legalized.

It refuses to acknowledge the conflict for a Biblical Christian for whom marriage is a deeply held religious belief. No one is arguing for the right not to serve homosexual customers, but only for an exemption in the case of marriage which for the entire history of Christianity has represented the union of Christ and the Church.

In a case in New Mexico, a couple were fined for declining to photograph a ss wedding. One of the Justices stated: "The Huguenins are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives."

So the rights of religious people will be made subservient to the rights of homosexuals. Whether you think this is a good thing or not, it cannot be denied.

What you are ignoring is that right now Christians and people of different races HAVE protection under the law.

You are proposing that same sex couples do not deserve the same protection. I disagree.

Not sure I understand your thought here.
My position is that there is a conflict between traditional religious belief and ssm, and therefore the legal rights of both parties should be respected. This is the situation being played out before the US Supreme Court.
DOJ files brief on behalf of baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple

Yes the legal rights. I propose that they receive the same protections others enjoy.

A heart surgeon who doesn't understand that hearts are for pumping blood may make bad decisions. So it is with us; if we don't understand what marriage is for, we will make bad decisions about marriage.

It's a very poor analogy.

Marriage is not only for children. Unless you propose that hetrosexual couples who can't have children shouldn't be bothered with marriage?

I assume you don't because most tradition Christians I've spoken to think that sex outside wedlock is a sin.

No one has commented that right now many examples of heterosexual marriage without the possibility of children are supported and celebrated by people of the Christian faith.

But I've talked long enough about that, and you raise an excellent point - it is true that gays and lesbians want SSM and I can hardly deny it. So what should the law about marriage be? As I see it there are 3 options.

1. Straight Only. (No legal marriage for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, polygamists, polyamorists etc etc)

This position has two advantages: it is based on the reality of what marriage is. Plus it is motivated by the protection of children. Always a good thing.

Disadvantage: The law is a blunt instrument so this is not the best option for gays, polygamists and other edge cases.

2. Straight + Gay Only. (No legal marriage for bisexuals, polygamists, polyamorists etc etc)

Advantages: People want it.

Disadvantages: Not based on reality but rather on feelings, plus a view about marriage that is simply wrong. Not the best option for polygamists, polyamorists etc etc, but still calls itself "marriage equality".

3. No legal definition of marriage

Advantages: Flexibility for people to do as they like. Gives LGBT all the equality they could reasonably want. Not based on a lie.

Disadvantages: None.

So there you have it. If you want equal rights for LBGT, no legal definition of marriage is a far, far better option than SSM.

I disagree. Within our culture legal marriage is all about couples and their rights and connections. The transition from a version that locked out inter racial marriage to a version that allowed men and women of all races to marry was trivial. Likewise that change of a version that locks the process to one man and one woman is trivial to change to one that connects two people eligible to sign the contracts.

I personally don't see why poly Australians shouldn't have protection and recognition, but it is a much more complicated process and may not have the support of our nation.

You repeatedly use "reality" as if you can demonstrate some kind of fundamental marriage particle, and I think the considerable exceptions already present demonstrate that to be false.

Also, children are repeatedly brought up, but what about the children of homosexual families, why don't they deserve the protections of marriage?

The issue that I have in this debate is my 6 year old son. He come home and tells me every few weeks that people tell him it is ok for him to marry a man. God does not want that, neither do I as a father. Vote No.

So you and your son don't support same sex marriage, so no one is allowed to have one?

Why do you get to decide for other people?

Someone said here that marriage is the institutionalization of monogamy. Succinct way to put it. Elephant in the room is that gay men don't do monogamy particularly well. So they want the public recognition of marriage but in private don't want to act married. Huh? Perhaps SSM should only be granted to lesbian couples!

Oh and please don't yell at me for being mean spirited about this... I've had many gay male friends and I've been told more than I wanted to hear about their arrangements. Their business of course but it does make me think they're missing the whole point of marriage. It's not just a big party and public commitment of the love- with a piece of paper making it official- it's about the lifetime commitment of fidelity.

Sure, yes plenty of straight couples get that wrong and mess up. We're all hypocrites at times, but honestly what makes gay couples think they can do better?

It would be better for everyone if government kept out of it all together.

But the government is already tightly involved with marriage, so restricting it from same sex couples is unfair.

I'll accept that many gay men have no interest in monogamy or fidelity. But those are also not people interested in getting married.

 

[AntiCow]

"Marriage is not only for children. Unless you propose that hetrosexual couples who can't have children shouldn't be bothered with marriage?"

While children are the primary purpose of marriage, I wouldn't say that marriage is only for children. Obviously it has many other benefits. I would say that infertile couples who get married are doing everything that is physically possible for them to do, so if they want to get married they can. But in most cases, people only find out they are infertile after years of trying and failing to have children.

"You repeatedly use "reality" as if you can demonstrate some kind of fundamental marriage particle, and I think the considerable exceptions already present demonstrate that to be false."

You believe that love exists (in some sense)? You're not expecting to find a love particle, are you?

I'm not sure what to make of your exceptions comment. Some people say that marriage is not about children because some couples are infertile. Where does that leave us though? Consider:
- Not all married couples love each other. (Many marriages are arranged.)
- Not all married couples live together. Think of military families, some Islamic cultures etc
- Sometimes people commit adultery. Does marriage have nothing to do with being faithful?
- Occasionally someone gets arrested on their wedding day and are divorced almost immediately. Should we say, then, that marriage has nothing to do with mutual support, sex, children, love, living together, joining another family etc etc?

If all the above is the case, we must conclude that marriage is not about anything at all. But then we have no explanation of why marriage is such a constant throughout human history.

Focusing on exceptions leads us nowhere. To understand marriage, focus on the centre.

You also ask why children of homosexual couples shouldn't have the protection of marriage. If we are talking legal marriage here, again I must bring up the polygamists, who have children too. Although to include literally all children, you would have to have marriages of convenience for orphanages, and single mothers (should they marry themselves)?

Consider this scenario: A married couple die, so the wife's two unmarried sisters agree to bring up their orphaned child. Should they start a marriage of convenience to get tax breaks?

No marriage law can possibly cover every single case. If you want exceptionless equality, there is only one way to get it and that is removing government definitions of marriage.

 

[ken777]

What you are ignoring is that right now Christians and people of different races HAVE protection under the law.
You are proposing that same sex couples do not deserve the same protection. I disagree.

I have no problem with same sex couples having protection under the law but what you are proposing is that same sex couples have protection that overrides the rights of others.

 

[Shemjaza]

"Marriage is not only for children. Unless you propose that hetrosexual couples who can't have children shouldn't be bothered with marriage?"

While children are the primary purpose of marriage, I wouldn't say that marriage is only for children. Obviously it has many other benefits. I would say that infertile couples who get married are doing everything that is physically possible for them to do, so if they want to get married they can. But in most cases, people only find out they are infertile after years of trying and failing to have children.

So what?

People happily support marriage as an important bond between two people and would support marriage between people who already know they are infertile or even too old to realistically raise more children.

"You repeatedly use "reality" as if you can demonstrate some kind of fundamental marriage particle, and I think the considerable exceptions already present demonstrate that to be false."

You believe that love exists (in some sense)? You're not expecting to find a love particle, are you?

Yes, but love is a complicated concept with many meanings and specific variations.

Love is an emotion not a social convention.

I'm not sure what to make of your exceptions comment. Some people say that marriage is not about children because some couples are infertile. Where does that leave us though? Consider:
- Not all married couples love each other. (Many marriages are arranged.)
- Not all married couples live together. Think of military families, some Islamic cultures etc
- Sometimes people commit adultery. Does marriage have nothing to do with being faithful?
- Occasionally someone gets arrested on their wedding day and are divorced almost immediately. Should we say, then, that marriage has nothing to do with mutual support, sex, children, love, living together, joining another family etc etc?

If all the above is the case, we must conclude that marriage is not about anything at all. But then we have no explanation of why marriage is such a constant throughout human history.

Focusing on exceptions leads us nowhere. To understand marriage, focus on the centre.

Yes, the people coming together to become a family.

If you read an article about a couple who have been married for 60 years and are still happy and in love, do you sneer and say "That's not a real marriage." if you hear they never had children? Personally, I'd be impressed and cheered.

You present a variety of radically different forms of marriage that have been, or are currently accepted as "marriage", then turn around and describe it as a constant?

I'll accept that committed married hetrosexual people is probably the biggest source of new people, so obviously that will have a long term effect of society.

But, "Adult couple, fall in love, decide to commit to permanently live their lives together", is the more standard model for modern Australian marriage, and there is no reason the genders involved need to change that.

You also ask why children of homosexual couples shouldn't have the protection of marriage. If we are talking legal marriage here, again I must bring up the polygamists, who have children too. Although to include literally all children, you would have to have marriages of convenience for orphanages, and single mothers (should they marry themselves)?

Maybe polygamists should have more rights. I already answered that question, but as I said it's much more complicated legally.

A woman marrying herself doesn't even make any sense. Legal marriage is about rights that a couple receive that two individuals do not.

How would marriages of convenience for orphanages work? If you don't have individuals committing to being parents there isn't an equivalent.

Consider this scenario: A married couple die, so the wife's two unmarried sisters agree to bring up their orphaned child. Should they start a marriage of convenience to get tax breaks?

Marriage is connected to romantic and sexual relationships and we as a nation have laws about incest to avoid abuse. That's why siblings can not marry in our society.

No marriage law can possibly cover every single case. If you want exceptionless equality, there is only one way to get it and that is removing government definitions of marriage.

While foolproof, it's a silly solution.

Marriage has benefits for the individuals involved and society at large. It encourages people to form supportive cooperative relationships.

I think that promoting same sex marriage has encouraged the concept, not hurt it.

I have no problem with same sex couples having protection under the law but what you are proposing is that same sex couples have protection that overrides the rights of others.

A person openly supplying services for weddings:
MAY NOT refuse service because they disagree with the religion of the people getting married.
MAY NOT refuse service because they disagree with the races of the people getting married.

WHY do you think a special exception for homosexual people is reasonable?