This is the 21st Century - and despite
the fact that many people support
gay marriage - why are they not legally
recognised?

Do gay marriages somehow
threaten straight marriages?

Why can't we have a full debate on the issue
with the lawmakers, politicians, and the
community at large.

Your thoughts please?

Foxy I think the debate should be over what involvement the government/community should have in regulating and endorsing the choices of consenting adults. It may also be about what marriage means and if there should be another legally recognised status which provides the same legal protections.

There are a whole bunch of issues around this.
- Gay marriage
- Plural marriage
- Fixed term marriage (with an option to extend)
- Should a marriage be something that's explicitly entered into or something based on a government definition?
- Is no-fault divorce the best option or should there be consequences for breach of contract?
- The difficulties around property settlements at the end of a relationship
- If we want the government involving itself then should pre-nups be mandatory?

I'd rather see a lot less government involvment but if we have extensive government involvement people should be better protected from some of the mess when things go wrong.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

Let's just legally recognise same-sex marriages
first, and then work on all the other issues
you've raised. At the moment we've got a ban on
the civil rights of people for religious and other
reasons. Let's start with fixing that first.

Foxy I don't like the piecemeal approach to civil liberties. Recognising same sex marriage while stopping basic legal recognition of other forms of relationships entrenches the idea that the government should be able to intefere. As long as the law does not provide disproportionate public benefits to those in particular types of relationships I don't believe that the government should involve itself in.

The core of the issue is about wether we think that the government should regulate what spousal type relationships people should be able to form. If it's just about public acceptance of particular types of relationships it entrenches the idea of the right to discriminate based on personal taste.

R0bert

'Should a marriage be something that's explicitly entered into'

Absofuckenloootly! It's crazy that we have to ask that question. Sneaky bastards.

'If we want the government involving itself then should pre-nups be mandatory?'

With respect to the above, definitely.

'Let's just legally recognise same-sex marriages
first, and then work on all the other issues
you've raised.'

Yep, but it's too late now. If they'd have been brave enough to do that in the first place, there would still be an option in Australia to live together while being financially independent. Basically what we have now is compulsory marriage after two years.

Why don't they just go the whole hog and enforce children by 2 years after 'marriage' as well.

The reason gay marriage will never be legal is because Christians will be prosecuted for saying it's wrong to be gay. Secondly, your kids WILL be taught about gay sex in primary school if gay marriage is the law of the land. When this happens, most parents would then take their kids out of public schools and put them in Christians schools so their kids would avoid reading books like My Two Dad's.

This would be unfair to the children of atheists because they'd have to remain in gay-friendly public schools, and most likely grow up to be atleast bisexual - we're all products of our environment I'm afraid.