Originally Posted By oc_dean Could you take a read of this, please: <a href="http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/theres-no-logical-reason-to-allow-gay-marriage/" target="_blank">http://www.thepunch.com.au/art...arriage/</a> And please tell me what you find wrong with it. Thanks
Originally Posted By skinnerbox There's plenty wrong with it, Dean, but I'll zero in on this part in particular: "Throughout its clouded history, marriage has been as much about the provision of a future for a society (through children) as it has been about the relationship between a man and a woman. A gay relationship is not the same as a marriage in this regard." This is wrong on so many levels, I'm not sure where to begin. Marriage has always been about property and assets. Children were married off by their parents, mostly their fathers, to other families as a means to secure property, assets, and power, especially in the case of the ruling class. The notion that marriage was done for love is a modern concept. Historical marriage has always been a social contract designed to consolidate and concentrate wealth. As for the part about gay marriages being unable to produce children as the result of a 'sexual relationship,' so what? There are hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples in this country alone who are unable to conceive for myriad of reasons. Is this author suggesting a litmus test for them? Do they have to prove their fertility before being afforded a marriage contract? What about fertile women who miscarry? There's no way to prove that beforehand, unless the couple attempts to procreate prior to the wedding. Somehow, I doubt this author would be copasetic with that idea. Just because children from gay marriages cannot be conceived through traditional avenues of vaginal penetration by the husband on his wife, doesn't make the inclusion of children in the relationship any more or less valid. Modern medicine is a wonderful thing. If this is how strongly he feels about it, then the next time he gets a bacterial infection, he should take the doctor's antibiotic prescription and rip it to shreds right there in the exam room. To do otherwise would be hypocritical on his part. This is nothing more than the same ol' tired excuses for denying civil rights to a minority group. I'm sure this idiot could find similar talking points for defending miscegenation, given the lack of factual information in this argument. Marriage is a social contract that may or may not involve progeny, that may or may not involve love, and that may or may not involve sexual relations. All of which are perfectly legal at the Federal level, unless you're a same sex couple.
Originally Posted By ecdc Yeah, I have a few key problems here. First is the leap: "gay relationships are different, ergo we need to call them something else." The reason for this is never really explained; the author spends all this time trying (and failing) to establish that gay relationships are different, but fails to give the "so what?" Do we need to call childless marriages something else? Interracial marriages? The vieux jeu argument about children ironically disproves the authors point. He never addresses childless marriages (chosen or otherwise), adoption, etc. These are the same lazy arguments made by those who really have no leg to stand on, attempting to mask unsupportable religious beliefs with secular worries.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Thanks skinnerbox ... I really appreciate your post ... and I hope others can take a moment and say something. In a week, I'm suppose to spend time with family for the holidays. But there's one person who'll be there, and agrees with this article - and I want to hit him up on every single logical point, why it's flawed. I've been reading the comments below, MOST take aim against the writer. It's as though he's speaking with one side of his mouth that is homophobic, and does not even realize it. And while there is no clear date on the article .... there are comments dated as early as July 2009. TWO years old. So .. it's dated .. but this one guy wants to cuddle the article like it's the latest and greatest write-up in a lifetime!
Originally Posted By MissCandice I find a lot wrong with the article. He is stating that gays don't enter into marriage with the thought of having children but that is not right. Many gays think of having children and if they have to adopt then being married would help their cause. Who cares if the children may not be produced as a result of the sexual relationship of the couple. According to this guy since I can't have kids due to a medical issue then I should not even consider marriage.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's the same old tired proceation argument. But tons of straight couples aren't able to have children, and countless others choose not to. Now one might say that the former didn't know this before they married and the latter could change their minds, but ask the person this: do we disallow couples in their 50's from marrying, i.e. couples where the woman is post-menopausal? They won't be procreating by definition. Do we disallow their marriages? No. On the contrary, we honor those marriages for their own sake, as indeed we should. It's as simple and logical as this: until and unless procreation is a requirement for marriage, it makes no sense to deny it to couples, straight or gay, on the basis that they won't be procreating.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka I just can't read any dumb anti-gay article. I spent most of the day Xmas shopping for my clients which meant I also had to drive...a lot. Most of my besties are lesbians (and as a bisexual woman happily married to a man), my weary soul cannot take anymore stupid, especially this holiday season. (And I can't afford to send my therapist's child to college.) I did read an interesting article on that stupid "Gathering Storm" group. <a href="http://jezebel.com/gathering-storm/" target="_blank">http://jezebel.com/gathering-storm/</a>
Originally Posted By oc_dean There's many comments .. but this one really gets me: >>Geri says: Either way, a gay marriage is not recognised by God.<< First of all .. I can't get passed the British/Australian spelling of "recognised" ;-) But I take it Geri must have sat down with God over coffee .. and told Geri, himself, that he does not recogni_Z_e marriage for gay people.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Which reminds me .... couple weekends ago .. I attended a march/rally in Sydney with some 10,000 on hand. (We gathered at Hyde Park .. marched through the center of downtown .. and to Darling Harbour where Julia Gillard (The Labor Prime Minister) was at an assembly.) And I particularly liked what one speaker said at Hyde Park: I don't want "Gay Marriage" - I want Marriage! People who think I want something "special" - nah! Far from it. Just the right to marry like any other Tom, Dick, or Harry .. To Jane,Polly,or Sally.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I'm looking for that "I don't want Gay Marriage, I want - Marriage" on Youtube ... but while I'm thinking about it - Those who had no idea Australia had a massive Marriage Equality March/Rally a couple weeks ago ... here's just one of MANY videos on youtube - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4RTIHkRuv4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...TIHkRuv4</a> I'm very glad I took part in this. At points during the march through the streets of the CBD of Sydney .. I shouted - WHAT DO WE WANT? (chorus - "Equal Rights") WHEN DO WE WANT IT? (chorus - "NOW")
Originally Posted By oc_dean It's hard to describe .... how 10,000 people stretched through this massive parade through the city streets - There's no doubt it stretched a mile to 2 kilometers long .. from front end .. to the back end. The media tried to downplay the figures .. but I was there for myself .. and it really took me by surprise. And now that Tony Abbott - leader of the Liberal party (think "Republican party") ... has said no to any Conscience Vote in his party ..... I guarantee you .. these marches will only get larger!
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Dean, I tried reading that article, but couldn't get through it all. I can't waste my time on idiots like this anymore. It's clear he is just another homophobic a-hole trying to make his bigoted nonsense sound logical, and "right". His whole kids argument is utter nonsense. On that line, we shouldn't allow two people with no interest in having kids marry either. He admits not everyone wants to have kids that marries but fails to point out how a non gay couple who doesn't want kids should be able to marry, and a gay couple who can't have natural children together differ shouldn't. This argument is riddled with wholes, even I can see through them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>As I said earlier, there are many long-standing, committed and loving gay relationships and I have no objection to some form of recognition by the state for those that seek it but I do not think that marriage and a gay relationship are the same thing. A gay relationship needs to be called something else.<< This paragraph illustrates that the writer has absolutely nothing upon which to construct his argument. So, he simple declares that gay marriages "need" to be called something else. Why? Because he said so, that's why. If you're in a discussion with someone who finds this particular argument compelling, then I am not sure there's anything much you can say to change their mind.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Marriage has always been about property and assets. Children were married off by their parents, mostly their fathers, to other families as a means to secure property, assets, and power, especially in the case of the ruling class./// So far so good...... however, you failed to address another important feature as seen by the traditionalists: children. There had been a prevailing presumption once two families joined: that is that they would have child/children. Assets and offspring(especially male)were the two reasons for marriage. And if you don't believe me, then ask Henry VIII. It looks like you purposely left out children to suit your argument.
Originally Posted By dshyates Well, what about situations like mine? I am a divorced gay father that has complete custody of my 2 kids. I already have the kids, but wouldn't they benefit from being in a loving 2 parent household? You know, more financial and logistical resources to put towards child rearing.
Originally Posted By u k fan Based on the line that Kar2oonMan quoted we seem to be arguing over the word marriage, not a union between same sex couples itself. A black comedian here in the UK does a routine about how he was shocked to find a brand of cheese in Australia called "Coon" and when he questioned people on it the replied that 'It's just a name'. If Australians can say that about Coon cheese you'd think they could get over calling a union between same sex partners "marriage"!!!
Originally Posted By dshyates "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet." Well if the name rose came with several hundred thousand dollars of benefits that any other name does not, then no it does smell as sweet.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Honestly with more important things to concern ourselves with these days I'm surprised people are still bringing this up.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Well said, dshyates. Not to mention numerous rights. While many states with civil unions allow similar (separate but sort of equal) rights , those rights cease to exist once they cross over state lines. The federal government does not honor them. For example: if I were to have a legal MARRIAGE to someone of the same sex in a different country, my government will not recognize that marriage and my wife would not be able to come live with me in the United States. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of rights that civil unions do not cover. Even if unions were truly equal to marriage, it's still "separate but equal", which is something that we're supposed to be protected from in this country. (Well, if LGTBQ people actually mattered to our government and citizens. But, to a LOT of people, we don't matter. We're still good enough to tax, however. Lucky us.)
