Same-sex marriage [Archive]

tricky28

17th June 2009, 03:42 PM

Why are you for it?

I'm kind of indifferent about this issue and i think it mainly stems from being an atheist and not caring at all about religious institutions (such as marriage). So what i would like to know is, where do people's motives fall in wanting same-sex marriage.

Why do you want to horn in on a historically religious heterosexual construct? To me i see the push of same-sex marriage as just conforming to heterosexual institutionalised society norms, and am puzzled as to why you want to do that? Our whole lifestyle is about breaking away from the established norms and perspectives. So is this really equality we want, or need? On the flipside is it even fair to take it away from heterosexual couples? We've got civil unions in ACT, Victoria, and Tasmania, and have from the July 1st gained entitlements on par with opposite-sex de facto couples. So why is the title of marriage so important?

Is it because:

- you're of faith and marriage holds a sacred place for you?
- you simply want the choice to participant in the same opportunities afforded to heterosexual couples?
- you feel the exclusivity of marriage to heterosexual couples somehow diminishes the validity of your partnership, as it's a 'level' you can't reach?
- following family tradition and wider society are important to you?
- anything in advocation of gay people will get your backing?

I think instead of elevating the status of marriage, it should be taken down a peg or two - and then those: single parents, defacto couples, divorcees, single people, and those who plainly don't want to get married who are viewed as 'failures' and/or aren't seen to be striving for this institution propagated by society as the ideal model for living - will be less stigmatised. So i'm wondering in the 21st century with some many alternative lifestyles and beliefs, should marriage still hold such reverence.

This isn't an attack on people advocating same-sex marriage, i'm just interested in why.

pioneer_to_the_falls

17th June 2009, 04:22 PM

I think that legalising same-sex marriage will prompt changes in the perception of homosexuality. Yes we are different, but we're still people. People who should have the choice to recognise their relationship as legitimate (which marriage will allow). By preventing same-sex marriage, we'll continue being seen as second-class and abnormal.

And for the record, I'm happy with civil unions. Like rudeboy said in another thread (I think it was him), it would be better if the institution of marriage was completely removed and civil unions took place for all. What happened to the seperation of state and church?

Asherbella

17th June 2009, 05:32 PM

meezon04

17th June 2009, 05:40 PM

Please vote for your preference on Same-Sex marriage today guys and girls!!!
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/poll/1,,661-5040217,00.html

rudeboy86

17th June 2009, 05:53 PM

Trendy intellectualization aside, for a minute.
You are human. Yes?
You have the potential to love another adult romantically? Yes?
Same sex marriage isn't about approval, assimilation or wanting to project/recreate heterosexual norms. It's about equality.

You can love another adult romantically without the need for marriage...seriously...

Marriage in itself is man-made and therefore means nothing in relation to being a human being which is natural.

Tricky seems to have a viewpoint...one I can agree with as well and I am not going to sit here and watch it get slammed for it either.

Power to ya Tricky!

sTaRiA

17th June 2009, 05:53 PM

Its about rights. Plain and simple. I have no desire to get married... but I still deserve the right to.

tricky28

17th June 2009, 06:12 PM

Trendy intellectualization aside, for a minute.
You are human. Yes?
You have the potential to love another adult romantically? Yes?
Same sex marriage isn't about approval, assimilation or wanting to project/recreate heterosexual norms. It's about equality.
I don't really follow what you're saying. Love is a feeling/emotion, marriage is a social construct - they are mutually exclusive.

Tricky seems to have a viewpoint...one I can agree with as well and I am not going to sit here and watch it get slammed for it either.

Power to ya Tricky!

heh, thanks!

Asherbella

17th June 2009, 06:26 PM

I don't really follow what you're saying. Love is a feeling/emotion, marriage is a social construct - they are mutually exclusive.

heh, thanks!

For you marriage is a social construct.
For others it is an affirmation.

Light-Bearer

17th June 2009, 06:29 PM

Same sex marriage and the right to it are extraordinarily important.

I have no interest in the spiritual or moral, component to it. This is something personal and different for each individual.
What I am concerned about are the legalities.

There have been cases of gay men, living together for years, and having shared assets. One of the men dies, and even has a will in place, leaving everything to his same sex partner. The family of the deceased contests the will. The marriage has no legal standing. The partner gets shit, the family gets the lot. Even the dead guy's body. They decide how to bury him, and dont invite the partner to the funeral.

This may sound really extreme- but guess what, things like this have happened to gay men and gay women for centuries.

Yes there are other issues in the world. Yes people are starving to death, and being brutalised by regimes and dictators etc....

And yes, Marriage is an archaic institution. But so are hate and ignorance.

Those who try to deny us this right, deny it under the ground of us being "immoral" and "Perverted". That people such as "us" have no right to it. They believe that marriage is for "normal" people ; heterosexuals.

I urge you to see beyond the Hallmark moments, and identify, that their intentions are sinister. There is a battle to be fought here. A long standing one.

The only rights you have in this world, are those you seize for yourself.

rudeboy86

17th June 2009, 07:56 PM

I am going to blatantly quote from another source which is not like me but whatever...

The following is from The Gay Manifesto by Carl Wittman...it was written prior to the AIDS epidemic but his point on marriage is still relevant. Just excuse the use of the word 'groovy' lol.

"Marriage is a prime example of a straight institution fraught with role playing. Traditional marriage is a rotten, oppressive institution. Those of us who have been in heterosexual marriages too often have blamed our gayness on the breakup of the marriage. No. They broke up because marriage is a contract which smothers both people, denies needs, and places impossible demands on both people. And we had the strength, again, to refuse to capitulate to the roles which were demanded of us.

Gay people must stop gauging their self-respect by how well they mimic straight marriages. Gay marriages will have the same problems as straight ones except in burlesque. For the usual legitimacy and pressures which keep straight marriages together are absent, e.g., kids, what parents think, what neighbors say.

To accept that happiness comes through finding a groovy spouse and settling down, showing the world that “we’re just the same as you” is avoiding the real issues, and is an expression of self-hatred.

Alternatives to Marriage: People want to get married for lots of good reasons, although marriage won’t often meet those needs or desires. We’re all looking for security, a flow of love, and a feeling of belonging and being needed.

These needs can be met through a number of social relationships and living situations. Things we want to get away from are: 1. exclusiveness, propertied attitudes toward each other, a mutual pact against the rest of the world; 2. promises about the future, which we have no right to make and which prevent us from , or make us feel guilty about, growing; 3. inflexible roles, roles which do not reflect us at the moment but are inherited through mimicry and inability to define equalitarian relationships.

We have to define for ourselves a new pluralistic, rolefree social structure for ourselves. It must contain both the freedom and physical space for people to live alone, live together for a while, live together for a long time, either as couples or in larger numbers; and the ability to flow easily from one of these states to another as our needs change.

Liberation for gay people is defining for ourselves how and with whom we live, instead of measuring our relationship in comparison to straight ones, with straight values."

tricky28

17th June 2009, 09:49 PM

Great post rudeboy, it brings up a lot of interesting points.

For you marriage is a social construct.
For others it is an affirmation.
Yeah i don't agree. Love is natural, universal and inherent - marriage however is not knowledge we're born with - it's a learnt concept. Whether people see it as an affirmation doesn't change that.

Same sex marriage and the right to it are extraordinarily important.

I have no interest in the spiritual or moral, component to it. This is something personal and different for each individual.
What I am concerned about are the legalities.

There have been cases of gay men, living together for years, and having shared assets. One of the men dies, and even has a will in place, leaving everything to his same sex partner. The family of the deceased contests the will. The marriage has no legal standing. The partner gets shit, the family gets the lot. Even the dead guy's body. They decide how to bury him, and dont invite the partner to the funeral.

This may sound really extreme- but guess what, things like this have happened to gay men and gay women for centuries.

Yes there are other issues in the world. Yes people are starving to death, and being brutalised by regimes and dictators etc....

And yes, Marriage is an archaic institution. But so are hate and ignorance.

Those who try to deny us this right, deny it under the ground of us being "immoral" and "Perverted". That people such as "us" have no right to it. They believe that marriage is for "normal" people ; heterosexuals.

I urge you to see beyond the Hallmark moments, and identify, that their intentions are sinister. There is a battle to be fought here. A long standing one.

The only rights you have in this world, are those you seize for yourself.
You can have the same rights without the title of 'marriage', i believe, although correct me if i'm wrong, with civil unions and under the defacto status. So horrible situations as you've illustrated don't occur.

I strongly believe we should have all the legal rights and entitlements afforded to us that married people enjoy - but it shouldn't have to be earned through marriage. And i think this has been addressed.

So marriage for the sake of rights is no longer the issue; its about getting the title and the symbolism it holds.

Light-Bearer

17th June 2009, 09:51 PM

Great post rudeboy, it brings up a lot of interesting points.

Yeah i don't agree. Love is natural, universal and inherent - marriage however is not knowledge we're born with - it's a learnt concept. Whether people see it as an affirmation doesn't change that.

You can have the same rights without the title of 'marriage', i believe, although correct me if i'm wrong, with civil unions and under the defacto status. So horrible situations as you've illustrated don't occur.

I strongly believe we should have all the legal rights and entitlements afforded to us that married people enjoy - but it shouldn't have to be earned through marriage. And i think this has been addressed.

So marriage for the sake of rights is no longer the issue; its about getting the title and the symbolism it holds.

But what if some one poops in your hat

tricky28

17th June 2009, 10:37 PM

i'll write to my local MP and complain?

Asherbella

17th June 2009, 10:59 PM

tricky28

17th June 2009, 11:58 PM

What do you mean when you say 'Our whole lifestyle is about breaking away from the established norms and perspectives'? What lifestyle are you living? A gay one? An alternate lifestyle? An emo lifestyle? Do you see being gay as a kind of rebellion of being 'normal'? I don't quite follow you. Why can't you be gay & be normal, too. You don't consider being gay as your being 'normal'? Who do you mean when you say 'our whole lifestyle'? Do you think the 'wholeness' of your identity lies in your homosexuality? Do you think all gays & lesbians live the same lifestyle? Or that we should all live the same lifestyle in order to fit into the gay community?
I think you're over analysing something that was quite simply put, and jumping to all these weird assumptions.
I was simply saying that a homosexual lifestyle challenges the normative framework of how people should lead their lives (ie. a heterosexual one). To what degree...whatever, doesn't matter, but there is no denying it widens the perspective on what is considered an 'acceptable' way to live. The fact is if you were living in the 1950s - you definitely wouldn't be living the way you are now. And thanks to the 'rebels' of past and present we can enjoy a lot more freedom to express that.

Asherbella

18th June 2009, 12:03 AM

I think you're over analysing something that was quite simply put, and jumping to all these weird assumptions.
I was simply saying that a homosexual lifestyle challenges the normative framework of how people should lead their lives (ie. a heterosexual one). To what degree...whatever, doesn't matter, but there is no denying it widens the perspective on what is considered an 'acceptable' way to live. The fact is if you were living in the 1950s - you definitely wouldn't be living the way you are now. And thanks to the 'rebels' of past and present we can enjoy a lot more freedom to express that.
But being gay is a state of being, though - not a lifestyle choice.
Not all gays 'behave' the same.
Being gay is not a behaviour; nor is it a lifestyle.
Being a vegetarian is a lifestyle choice, for example.
Individual expression is a choice...
Why do you believe that a 'homosexual lifestyle' exists?

nu_archer

18th June 2009, 12:08 AM

Asherbella

18th June 2009, 12:14 AM

I see marriage as a religious rite. So no, I don't particularly support gay marriage as such. Different religions/denominations/sects should have the right to set their own rules regarding who can get married.

However, I do support civil unions. I see it as a way of making your commitment to one another more formal.

Marriage is the legally binding partnership of two people who commit to honouring a romantic, sexual, loyal relationship: for life. Religion has nothing to do with it. Atheists can get married, religious people can get married: so long as they're straight & marry a person of the opposite gender: so, marriage isn't a religious thing. The fact that the standard has been getting married in a place of worship is irrelevant. You don't NEED to get married in a 'house of G-d'.

Smith

18th June 2009, 12:27 AM

I'm against any type of marriage

nu_archer

18th June 2009, 12:31 AM

Marriage is the legally binding partnership of two people who commit to honouring a romantic, sexual, loyal relationship: for life. Religion has nothing to do with it. Atheists can get married, religious people can get married: so long as they're straight & marry a person of the opposite gender: so, marriage isn't a religious thing. The fact that the standard has been getting married in a place of worship is irrelevant. You don't NEED to get married in a 'house of G-d'.

Point taken, but the rite of marriage has stemmed from religion and been incorporated into law. Where did the act of marriage start? It certainly didn't come from a legal background.

The definition has changed over the years to include the term 'legally binding'.

Asherbella

18th June 2009, 01:00 AM

I'm against any type of marriage

Cool.
How do you see marriage?
A restriction?
A submission?
How do you define marriage in terms of being not suitable for you?

rudeboy86

18th June 2009, 01:44 AM

Marriage is the legally binding partnership of two people who commit to honouring a romantic, sexual, loyal relationship: for life. Religion has nothing to do with it. Atheists can get married, religious people can get married: so long as they're straight & marry a person of the opposite gender: so, marriage isn't a religious thing. The fact that the standard has been getting married in a place of worship is irrelevant. You don't NEED to get married in a 'house of G-d'.

Yes people may not have to get married in a 'house of god' but have you noticed that many of the people campaigning against same-sex marriage are religious nutbags? I am not including Queer Liberationists who generally oppose the concept of marriage.

Marriage is the legally binding contract between two people who commit to blah blah blah but why the hell should Marriage be the only legally binding contract? Why does it still exist and not be phased out slowly as a new inclusive form of legally binding contract is introduced?

rudeboy86

18th June 2009, 01:54 AM

Cool.
How do you see marriage?
A restriction?
A submission?
How do you define marriage in terms of being not suitable for you?

Outdated hetero happily ever after bullshit binding contract.

Binding beind the active word here. To bind somebody is to restrict their freedom to a certain point. To bind a person's foot limits the ability to walk normally.

The other word associated with bind is of course bondage...I dont mean bondage as in the fetish, I mean bondage as in the words that was originally used to describe slavery. Asher you should know from the english translations of the Haggodah that they refer to slavery as bondage and the story of exodus as fleeing bondage.

So to bind somebody is to essentially subjugate them in one way, even if it is consented to...you should take a look at the language expressing relationships; "my husband", "my wife", "my boyfriend", "my girlfriend"...etc I never knew that relationships were about ownership? But in the case of being bound by a legal contract then you could say that one can then be owned.

Nevarro

18th June 2009, 10:32 AM

I'm indifferent about getting “married” at the moment however once upon a time (2 years ago) I was all for it.
So much in fact that when I thought I had found the one I wanted to spend the rest of my life with I acted on it.
I went out and purchased two “commitment” rings, each with a small diamond and had them engraved with the French word for Eternity.
One warm summer night as the stars were sparkling in the dark blue sky I took him somewhere he had never been before, with a beautiful view of this lovely city I took the box from my pocket and I whispered in his ear and asked if he would spend the rest of his life with me.
He said YES! 
Granted things didn’t work out in the long run (Politics, Religion and then some) but at the time that was what I wanted.
I'm sure when the right guy comes along again if I feel the same as I did then ill consider the same.
Or maybe ill hint at him to ask me LOL

Some people see it as security.
Others see it as a dream they have had since childhood.
Some people don’t see it at all.
We all have our reasons for or against it but at the end of the day even tho I may no longer want to get “married”, like Staria said, I sure as hell deserve the right to do so if I want to!
Equality and recognition. I don’t want it in the house of God, its got nothing to do with religion for me, its about the commitment and that lifelong promise you make to someone.

camiseta

18th June 2009, 10:48 AM

My wedding will be held at night. It will be at The Red Rattler or somewhere similar. I will be wearing a kimono and have pure white skin and red lips, failing that I imagine I'd be dressed like a wind in the willows character with a straw boater and searsucker suit. The bands and DJ's and VJ's will play and everyone will dance. Giesha's will wander around serving champagne before a few of them break into a floor show of some Japanese rope bondage. I will have a donkey in the venue painted to look like a zebra. And poodles dressed with unicorn horns on their foreheads. There will be burlesque performers with hoola hoops and striptease artists and in the middle of it all there will be the ceremony. The only religious thing about my wedding (and subsequent marriage) will be the gasps of awe that my guests have when they suck their breathe in over their teeth and exlaim "OMG!" at the indulgent spectacle before them.

My point is a marriage is what you (the couple, or threesome or however many people are in it) want it to be. You can allow it to conform to social norms or make it what you want it to be. Mine will be fabulous!

tricky28

18th June 2009, 11:59 AM

But being gay is a state of being, though - not a lifestyle choice.
Not all gays 'behave' the same.
Being gay is not a behaviour; nor is it a lifestyle.
Being a vegetarian is a lifestyle choice, for example.
Individual expression is a choice...
Why do you believe that a 'homosexual lifestyle' exists?
I never anywhere in my posts said it was a choice being gay. You really need to stop mixing up terminology, as i don't think you understand what is being said. Aspects of a lifestyle are both implicit and explicit; a combination of biological, personal, and social influences. I never said every gay person acts the same, but with every group there are commonalities that bring them together.

Now i would appreciate it if you would stop taking this thread off topic with your convoluted rants.

rudeboy86

18th June 2009, 05:35 PM

I never anywhere in my posts said it was a choice being gay. You really need to stop mixing up terminology, as i don't think you understand what is being said. Aspects of a lifestyle are both implicit and explicit; a combination of biological, personal, and social influences. I never said every gay person acts the same, but with every group there are commonalities that bring them together.

Now i would appreciate it if you would stop taking this thread off topic with your convoluted rants.

Tricky...that is what Asher does when he is stuck for ideas or any argument to counter anybody elses'. Mixing your words and essentially accusing you of saying things that you clearly didn't is what he also does in these situations in the hope that you will get confused and drop the topic.

We know you did not say being gay is a choice or that every gay person acts the same...

Twisting other poeple's words, as pathetic as it may seem, is an interesting defence mechanism...not very smart once people figure it out though...then it becomes tedious.

Grumpy

18th June 2009, 08:56 PM

Truly why would anyone really want to get married in this day and age?

It's a defunct institution suitable only for the religous right.

bellsforher

18th June 2009, 09:00 PM

as a child of divorced parents, I grew up suspicious of the whole thing.
I am all for people celebrating some kind of union, but marriage...it seems a bit defunct. Every couple should have the same rights. Married, de-facto....whatever. a couple is a couple.

largs girl

18th June 2009, 09:27 PM

As an older person who has been in a longterm relationship, the issue of the right to marriage is important. Like Staria and others even if we personally might not decide to get married, we should have the choice to do so if we want.

I don't want to 'register' my relationship. Registering is for guns and dogs not loving relationships.

I think it is about respect and equality. I've been with my partner for 31 years since I was a teenager. We're now grandparents.
In Australia marriage is both a civil and a religious institution. I don't want or need to be married in a church but I should be allowed to have my relationship recognised in a non-religious way (if I want to) that is no less than the civil recognition that hetrosexual couples currently have.
I don't care about being able to have the big ceremony in front of family and friends. We don't need a ceremony to confirm we are committed after 30 plus years but the symbolism of a 'marriage' certificate (so that you can tick the married box on forms not single or defacto and risk the asumption that you're an opposite sex couple) gives us the same recognition and respect for our relationship as hetro couples
I agree with a lot of what you say about this Rude Boy and others who condemn marriage as an outdated institution as I did myself in the 70s and 80s but now I think give us the right to marriage if we want it . Many straight couples have redefined marriage to be something other than possession. If gays can marry then maybe marriage could mean something broader than this- more about individual commitment and less about ownership and control.
In the end, whether I can marry in Australia or not, I'm still so incredibly lucky to be with the love of my life, 3 wonderful children and two delightful grandchildren. Many straight married couples don't have anything as good and no matter want they can't take this away from me.