You originally said:
"the current definition is one that all cultures and races can agree on."
Which is a lie. You concede above that there is an incongruency between the current definition of marriage and that which is accepted by all cultures, so you have contradicted yourself.
it was a slight correction, geesh. and you are simply asserting. I provided cases that show it is more compatible with our western culture, which borrows a lot heavily from the religious views that I hold. I think you will find more cultures can agree on what I am say than SSM. The latter is not as universally compatible.
You have not demonstrated anything really except by assertion under assumption that everyone here has the same basis as you do. I am talking in general terms.
Traditional marriage is congruent with western values even on equality and anti-discrimination. That that is probably a controversial statement. But that is the one you actually have to engage with. Australian legislation (the Sex Discrimination 1984) makes it clear that there is nothing in the Marriage Act that can be considered discriminatory, the ICCHR and other human rights commissions in the EU, recognise that there is no requirement from a rights standpoint that obligates any state to legalise same-sex marriage. The senate enquiry makes that very clear.
There is a reason for instance we distinguish between male and female sports. There is a reason why men and women use different bathrooms. There is a reason why the government feels the need to, make clear about the nature of a specific relationship that serves a specific function, both historically and now. People come together in a sexual union, all the time, but the permancy of marriage and the gendered-nature of marriage are there for specific reasons. Let me highlight some.
1. In a marriage, the expectation which varies, but is in general, understood, that in marriage is the best environment for the raising of children, and is an institution that has been designed to reflect that. It reflects the biological observation that when a man and a woman have sex, in principle, are able to procreate and produce offspring, and so marriage in terms of what it legally spells out, provides the mesh and the responsibilities linked with family law in general, on what it looks like for parents.
2. Marriage is a celebration of the diverse differences with human gender. The biological features of a man and a woman are very different, and then consequently fatherhood and motherhood, are significantly in the roles they play in the raising of children. It recognises not per say the superiority, the uniqueness of a man/woman sexual union as being complementarian in nature, in the diverse and good differences between men and women, both their physical bodies, their pyschological thought patterns, and so what men and women contribute together and show to our society is co-operation and love between the two genders, rather than only loving their own kind.
3. From a religious standpoint, and for many cultures, marriage is significant and the sex between man and woman in marriage is seen as a good and important thing, it is viewed in many cultures as the appropriate place for the expression of man's and woman's desire, and it speaks of the commitment to one only and not. Now clearly the definition in law is remotely removed from this. Marriage has more meaning to most as a gendered union where both genders/sexes take part.
Sentence fragment; consider revising
You haven't identified what the subject "it", in this sentence refers to.
context is key, the subject should be obvious that it refers to marriage. nevertheless carry on...,
Sentence fragment; consider revising.
You haven't identified who or what "has moved" in this sentence.
It is quote from the senate enquiry. I think it was the European union court but the point it isn't relevant which court is saying it too much.
What I wrote has nothing to do with the 2004 amendment, I made no reference to it. I was referring to the culture that existed when marriage law was defined, in regard to which you claimed "they couldn't care less whether what you do in the bedroom", which is obviously not historically true.
Well i am talking about marriage, arguing about whether homosexuality should be criminalized or sinful is a red herring here. The government in legislating marriage "does not care less what you do in the bedroom".
That is what I am/was talking about. I understand the criminalization of homosexuality in the past, and I do not think the government has the right to make such moral statements on what people do in the bedroom. But marriage has never been legislated on that basis, and that is my point. It would help if I was clearer maybe but I think you original reply was kind of attacking a false understanding, I am talking about marriage, I am talking about the involvement of government in marriage, not whether homosexuality should be criminalized or not.
honestly we are probably not on the same page.
I explained how so in the next sentence.
sorry for my tendency for incomplete sentences. I don't think you have demonstrated where the misunderstanding is.
I understand that de-factos didn't exist in 1980s, homosexuality wasn't decriminalized into 1997.
I am quite ok with those changes, what I am not ok with is changing an institution that actually has some value and implications for family and society, in ways that introducing civil unions and other legal structures that stipulate the same kind of legal standing for gays/lesbians.
Very little what? It is hard to understand your position when many of your sentences are incomplete, or don't relate to the text you have quoted.
I have been commenting several posts before. My last post may have incomplete sentences but that is sometimes what happens on these forums.
I think it is more so the conclusions you are drawing.
Let me lay our your argument:
Let me define my argument for the sake as one object 'A'
1. I use argument A
2. People have used argument A years ago to oppose civil unions.
3. Civil unions exist
4. I think civil unions are a good thing.
Since A implies "civil unions are bad". And I use A and yet hold civil unions are ok, then somehow A is problematic. That is your argument.
When really here is why I said this a general brush: let me propose what is actually happening:
1. I am using an argument A which resembles an argument A' used by opponents of civil unions.
The problem is that is under assumption that all people who use that argument have the same opinion/view or basis, which is false/faulty.
No I don't agree with the argument that civil unions will affect marriage while I will argue to some degree against divorce.
The difference is one is affecting the actual terms of the definition, the other is on whether civil unions affect the value of the institution which no-one in our society seems to agree on.
I don't think they do, as I think you can give the legal rights without undermining the principle of marriage.
Why do you want same sex couples to have access to the legal entitlements of marriage through a civil union?
It is more of a concession, that I really am not too bothered if they want legal entitlements of marriage in a civil union.
Marriage is less agreed on and a civil union is something most people would be tolerable of.
I think that is a better approach than actually changing the definition of an institution in such a way that unfortunately has been used to affect directly understanding of family, promote controversial gender opinions and villify religious people despite assurances of religious protections.
I think many more people would have been convinced, even Christians, would be more convinced, if the argumentation was so directly trying to undermine religious freedom and freedom of speech. It is the bitter irony, that the people crying for tolerance, acceptance, equality, think they have the right to undermine societal structures which are there for the benefit of society as a whole. I agree it is wrong to criminalize homosexuality and that.
The marriage definition as it stands, is used as a rally point when really, you would find most Christians who would disagree on same-sex marriage, would happily defend for the right to speak your views and even to ensure that gay/lesbian relationships have an appropriate legal recognition, in a way that is actually going to clearly benefit our society. The whole push for LGBTIQ rights, while in principle seems good, seems heavily misguided.
There are real injustices, however it is not right in our culture, to expect everyone to accept and even celebrate your sexual choices and lifestyle, LGBTIQ are free to do it in this country. The way to go about acceptance is not to force it legally upon the people, and that is the problem we see, people sued over their views in other countries. This is a morally divided issue.
