My guess is that there will be a return to marriage, or there best be a return to marriage before society disintegrates completely. In a feminist or Marxist state, there is no marriage, no love and no family (and of course no commitment).

However, no feminist or Marxist state has ever been known to exist for very long.

I'm straight and I'm not married for much the same reasons.

vanna,

I have love and commitment and children, I'm just missing that piece of paper. Somehow I really don't think you read or grasped the article at all.

Question: What is more of a commitment between two people together; Raring a child that shares their genes and that they share responsibility for, or signing a bit of paper that can be nullified by divorce?

Marriage is also a contractual relationship. A legal spouse has rights to property and inheritance along with such other rights as to access to a partner in the hospital who is only allowed to see family members. I am a man married to a woman and have those rights. I see no reason why same sex partners should not also have those rights.

I completely agree with you that people's private consensual sexual relationships are none of the government's business, and all regulation of them should be abolished, including the Marriage Act, the Family Law Act, the Property Relationships Act, the Family Provision Act, and the law against bigamy. We need only one law on all of this: that people's relationships must be based on consent, that's all.

However marriage is not a piece of paper. That is a marriage *certificate*. Nor is it getting dressed up in a fluffy white dress. That is a marriage "ceremony".

It is a mistake to think that marriage is either a state or a church invention. The state did not begin to register marriages until the 19th century, nor the church until about the 16th. Before that, marriage took place outside the church.

Neither the state nor the church ever claimed their registration constitutes the marriage - and they still don't - but only to recognise the marriage constituted by the act of the parties.

If you read your legal history, you will find that the essence of marriage is not love either. It is commitment. The act of marriage is, in common law, the act of a man and woman taking each other to be husband and wife "in words of the present tense". That is why the parties say "I do", rather than "I might" or "I am waiting to see how it turns out" or "when my boat comes in".

Before the common law defined marriage in about the 12th century, the marriage law varied according to the tribal customs of England, some Anglo-Saxon, some Dane, some Manx, and so on; including polygamous customs.

But, you might say, why should my sexual relationships be dictated by any of this? Why indeed?

Gays have the same right as anyone else to declare their commitment to whom they want for what they want; and a *greater* freedom of property settlements. They do not need the state's imprimatur which is indeed a curse, not a blessing.

Houellebecq,

Over 30% of children are now born outside of marriage, while de-facto relationships only last for a short period of time.

In the UK, it is estimated that 50% of children born outside of marriage will only have 1 parent by the time they reach the age of 5, while children born to a properly married husband and wife will fair better.

By rights, de-facto relationships should be declared a health hazard.

A lawyer saying "An idea cannot be owned"?
Shane obviously doesn't work in Intellectual Property.

vanna
That's right. The government spends billions on child protection bureaucracies while actively discriminating against marriage and subsidising single parenthood and step-parenthood, which are two of the biggest correlates with risk of harm and disadvantage to children.

'n the UK, it is estimated that 50% of children born outside of marriage will only have 1 parent by the time they reach the age of 5'

How does the other parent die?

Chris H

You're right that I don't work in IP.

But as I understand it, trademarks protect logos and the like, patents protect inventions, and copyright protects copy (and I really mean just the text).

In the case of copyright, there is a fundamental distinction in law that copyright protects the expression of ideas but not the ideas themselves. And our High Court has said as much.

Of course, all of these things derive from ideas. But there is nothing in the law that protects just an idea. There are only a few categories of protection for particular expressions of ideas.

To the author:
You say three times that you do not need to be married. You have what you want so what is the purpose of your article? Who are you trying to convince?

You say you don’t need the approval of those who believe in marriage or the approval of the state or society. Why do we need to know this?

There must be someone’s approval you are looking for. There is no need to deny it otherwise.

These posts pick up some interesting points – marriage is indeed a social construct, a contract more than a legal status. As society’s attitudes to marriage have changed, so has our practice of marriage. Divorce is no longer socially stigmatised. Many committed couples choose never to marry, and their “de facto” relationships are gaining the same legal status and benefits as formal marriages. As community prejudices and hostility to homosexuality wane, I hope and expect that the same status and protections afforded to heterosexual couples will extend to gay ones, under whatever label that relationship might go.

Precisely because it has mainly social significance, however, I believe some form of ceremony or other formal mark of community recognition will remain an important part of our culture. It’s fine if the author chooses not to seek that. But many people feel otherwise, which is why the denial of the recognition of marriage to those gay couples who want that is so cruel and so sad.

I agree with the author, why would your commitment be invalid if it is not pronounced in front of some patriarch of an establishment.

Nowadays a lot of weddings are just graduation ceremonies for the parents. They can invite all their friends and boast about what a good job they have done.

Traditionally I suspect that marriages just had to do with the propagation of property rights.

It ensured that a man's properties would pass on to his kids ( and not someone else's). Ironically it has something quite Darwinian about it.

In Islam for example it is possible to get divorced and during the wedding ceremony the Imam can read out the conditions for divorce. The woman can divorce the man if he is gone for more than 3 years. The man can divorce the woman if she is gone for a few months. I forgot the exact number but it is less than 9.

In Holland a wedding is a legal procedure. A public servant reads out the marriage act and then asks the lucky couple if they promise to adhere to the act. (Yes, yes are the usual responses)

'I am gay and I don't want to be married.' I am not really sure that it is something to be proud of. You show little understanding of marriage not seeming to have any idea that marriage is a covenant and not a contract. At the rate most change partners these days (and especially those practicing homosexuality) I doubt whether many relationships are any more than using each other. You say you don't want to get a pat on the back from Government and yet the gay lobby are among the most vocal and influential (especially among the Greens and Labour). Your language I suggest is more vulgar or equivalent to the Government of which you accuse.

My first response to this gobbledygook was the author was sedated and wrote this " tongue-in-cheek ". On reflection, this abhorrent piece of juvenile mendacity led me to believe, he needed psychiatric help urgently. An avowed poofter; he wanted the World to know. In your face. Like it or not.

His gripe is more to do with empathy, than marital bliss. His sarcastic criticism of marriage per see, is an acknowledgement his Parents and forebarers were woefully naive in their belief in the inviolability of marriage. He confuses marriage with commitment, lust and homosexuality. Perhaps, in his lawyers masquerade, he equates Marriage Laws with the laws of the jungle. Among the Anarchist, only the fittest survive. Whatever next ?

His outburst is against Society in general. Institutions that withered time immemorial. It has pragmatically brought us this far in time, Shane Ogden notwithstanding. A confused young man, he should seek counseling and a career change. Rafferty rules, where there is NO norm. With no one taking responsibility for their indiscretions. Above all, his tirade is a lamentable hotchpotch of half truths and jaundiced paradigm. Moreover, hoping the hoi polloi will sympathetically agree with his premise, even though it is far from original. At worst, plagiarized from the Marquis De Sade ( circa 1779)

Why should Parliament convene to change the Law at the urging of a narcisstic individual ? The Marriage Act. 1961. is a Federal Statue Law that prescribes who may marry, perform the marriage service, where, when it is conducted. No bells, squeeks or trauma.Bigamous, polygamous, incestuous, homophobic marriages is invalid. In certain circumstances i.e Decree of Nullity, is non valid. The Family Law Act.1974. covers separations, divorces, parenting orders, maintenance, property etc, should children be involved.

To believe one is above the Law, by preaching a form of anarchism, and urging others to subscribe is a form of double jeopardy, is simply theoretical baloney. There is abundant proof S O's prognosis is a recipe for disaster. On the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely anyone would subscribe to this churlish heterodoxy..
cnt...

let alone his plaintive cry for fairness when he gives none.

For the sake of petty argument, all is not lost. Fr Kennedy, the maverick priest from Oxley (QLD) who brought condemnation from his Bishop, and the Vatican, conducts same sex marriages routinely in his new parish church. His blessings can still be bought at a fair price.

Apart from the event of children appearing on the scene, who provides the parental guidance, educational, inspirational needs when partners are conveniently changed overnight ?

Whatever the slant, the proposition is fraught with delusional self promotion, and cavet emptor to those who aspire to this alternate avant guarde lifestyle ?

Best of British luck !!

Chris H

Regards quotes, I thought this very apt.

“With all these matters to be considered, there is even the possibility of your thinking you are in a de facto relationship while your partner thinks you are not.

If you have any concerns in this area or would like to know more, contact your solicitor.”

http://www.lawlink.co.nz

At least in a proper marriage, both the husband and wife would know that they were actually married.

Marrige is a public, religious and legal contract, that two people will stay together.

The combination of public, religious and legal commitments are required to make it as strong as posible.

Every sucessful society has a 'marrige' system. Muslims, Christians, Indians, Red Indians, Aboriginals etc etc. Why? Because children need BOTH parents. Of course, old people can also marry, infertile people too... but that doesn't undermine the idea that marriage was seperately invented in every culture, in each continent by humand because it is needed to protect children.

It is very hard to get the figures, but the fact is that children are virtually NEVER abused in families with BOTH NATURAL parents. Almost all child abuse is committed in 'single parent' or in "mum-and-mummies-new-boyfriend" households.

You can try to explaing this away by politically correct explainations that these are struggling, stressed, disadvantaged households...

Or you can just accept the truth.

The greatest love of all is a parents love for their child... when there are both NATURAL parents watching out for the kids, abuse almost never occours.

Luckilly most kids spend most of their childhoods with BOTH natural parents... even when the parents divorce eventually, they kids spend most of their childhood safe before the divorce.

So you can't just say 20% of abuse happens in two parent families... you have to adjust the figures into rates per 1000 children. When you do, you find that missing out on one natural parent increases the risk of abuse by 2600% A child without both natural parents is 26 times more likely to be abused.

Put that into perspective... We all know that Smoking 'causes' cancer... well, smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by 1.2times... but missing a natural parent increases the risk of abuse, not by 1.2 times, but by 26 times! If you believe smoking causes cancer, divorce and children losing a natural parent cause child abuse. Period.

Marrige was a strong commitment to keep people together, because children need that for their safety. Easy divorce and single-parenthood cause child abuse.

Citations available Parttimeparent@pobox.com

I don't really see the point to all this debate. If you want to get married, then do so. If you don't, then live alone or in a defacto relationship.
Legally, the married and defacto couples are almost equal under the eyes of the law now anyway.

I wanted to get married, and luckily so did my husband!

I just felt that formalizing the relationship took it that one little step closer, and also we got to have a great engagement party and wedding party. What's not to like?

Formersnag, you never give up do you? This thread is about marriage, not the dreaded single mother!

<< I just felt that formalizing the relationship took it that one little step closer, and also we got to have a great engagement party and wedding party. What's not to like? >>

Nothing, if that is your choice, however it remains verboten for gay couples and a sad indictment on our society where people cannot hold a ceremony and participate fully in all our cultural activities, marriage being just one.

suzeonline: << I don't really see the point to all this debate. If you want to get married, then do so. If you don't, then live alone or in a defacto relationship. >>

The trouble is that those gay people who want to marry their partners are legally unable to do so. That this blatant discrimination not only persists in Australian society, but was also affirmed this week in the Senate, is an indication of the extent to which structural homophobia is still very much with us.

Neither of the major political parties in Australia is game to support an end to this obvious discrimination against homosexuals, which indicates the extent to which they are still captive to the reactionary, homophobic forces that are evidently still far too powerful in our society.

Marriage is also a public health measure. Married people are less likely to be promiscuous than unmarried people. I favour same sex marriage, along with other reasons, as a disease prevention measure.

davidf

'I favour same sex marriage, along with other reasons, as a disease prevention measure.'

You would outlaw sodomy if the disease factor was considered.

runner wrote: "You would outlaw sodomy if the disease factor was considered."

Dear runner,

Great idea!

Why not outlaw sex except for masturbation? If it could be enforced that would stop the spread of sexually transmitted disease. Babies could be conceived in the sterile confines of the laboratory.

We could have a world of sexual outercourse.

Suze asks what is the point - I agree. Why are we still wedded to the same age old arguments. Get married if you want, don't if you don't want. People are no longer shunned or stoned for being in defacto relationships.

Marriage means a lot to some people. Same sex relationships should enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples even if the marriage ceremony is only a symbolic part of all the other legalities that go with more permanent relationships.

How exactly do you define a 'couple'? If two men live together for thirty years as companions but never have sex should not they be considered a couple in terms of rights to all the privileges afforded a married couple? If a man and woman live under the same roof and share everything except a sexual relationship should they not be entitled to the same rights that homosexual couples want?

There are many people who publicly proclaim themselves as homosexual couples but never have sex. There are many heterosexuals who are either married or living in de facto relationships who never have sex. Is having sex the criteria for a relationship that is able to access the privileges provided by law and government? If that is true then should not the government be seeking proof of sexual activity before it gives out those privileges?

There are many loving relationships that are not sexual and these have as much right as those that are. It is about rights for all people not just for sexually active people. The problem is that if rights were extended to all couples irrespective of sexual activity there would be no way of telling who was sexually involved and who was not and this would not be acceptable to anyone who was looking for public recognition of their sexual behaviour.

It shows how ludicrous the laws pertaining to marriage and partnerships really are. How can the government or any legal institution determine who is truly a couple? Certainly a piece of paper does not make a couple and neither does sex. The laws are based on antiquated definitions of relationships which do not truly reflect who should be entitled to the privileges.

Excellent points Phanto - agree with all.

A great deal is made of the sex act. Love is a lot more than just sex. Too many people spending too much time thinking about what goes on in the bedrooms of same sex couples and not enough on what being a committed couple is really about.

phanto,

If you could wave your magic wand, what would you have instead?

CJ Morgan <" The trouble is that those gay people who want to marry their partners are legally unable to do so. That this blatant discrimination not only persists in Australian society, but was also affirmed this week in the Senate, is an indication of the extent to which structural homophobia is still very much with us."

I agree CJ, however I guess I was only discussing marriage between a heterosexual couple, because that is all that is legal at the moment.

I really don't see a problem with gay people marrying.
What I wouldn't like to see happening is the inevitable follow-on of people then demanding their 'rights' to marry multiple partners.

Polygamy is a practice that I abhor, given that so far it has traditionally been men who are 'able' to take several wives in some countries.

Polygamy would be a backward step in the rights of women, were it to become legal in Australia.

Cornflower "If you could wave your magic wand, what would you have instead?"

For me it would be for the government to get out of the business of regulating relationships. The ability to register another person (or persons) with next of kin type rights so that they could do the hospital visits (and other stuff an near blood relative would not normally be able to do) should be about the limit of specific government involvment. Most stuff should be able to be handled by other mechanism's - will's, contract, power of attorney etc. I pondered the role of consent but again that should be handled by other laws.

Suzie the bit that bemuses me with the objection to polygamy (or other plural marriage's) based on it's implementation in other countries is that those issues mostly have a lot to do with cultural views and religious beliefs which we do allow in this country.

Those entering into a polygamous relationship would have to consent, those already in the relationship either initiate the change, consent to it or leave. Under a our current laws people get left for a new partner with no real redress for the harm they suffer, those whose partner has a mistress (or whatever the male equivalent is) have the choice to demand it stop, put up with it or leave. Where is the new harm?

Other than complicating issues around government support for families I struggle to see where legal recognition of plural marriages actually introduces a harm that's not already in the system.

R0bert

Robert, have you watched the problems that have come out of Polygamous marriages in the USA?
Very young 'women' and girls have been 'chosen' as new wives by much older men.
Often these girls have no choice at all whether they wish to marry an old man or not.

If some men may think this sounds great to them, what about the young adolescent male youths who are thrown out of the 'family' home and the wider community lest their lust take over and they may take off with some of the young women the elders want?!

Underage girls are particularly prized as brides by paedophiles that frequent these communities under the guise of wanting to join that religious way of life.

Yep, it all sounds a great way of life and simply another alternative lifestyle does it? I beg to differ.

RObert,

It was kind of you to reply.

I asked the question because I do not know how aspects of multiculturalism policy could be reconciled without allowing polygamy and Sharia Law. This is if the definition of 'one man and one woman' in the Marriage Act was changed, for instance for gay marriage.

De facto law is a mess, with many people disagreeing with recent changes.

Vanna wrote: "In a feminist or Marxist state, there is no marriage, no love and no family (and of course no commitment).

However, no feminist or Marxist state has ever been known to exist for very long."

The above is not true. The USSR lasted for seventy years. There was marriage, love and family.

Love is not dependent on the wishes of the state. The USSR made a big thing out of marriage. There were big wedding palaces as the state tried to replace the religious wedding with fancy state sponsored ones. As far as I know people were as committed to each other in the USSR as they are in our society.

With various subsidies to the family some communist societies were more committed to the family than current Australia is.

Phanto, yes the laws on relationships are a mess, and Cornflower yes legalising gay marriage would obviously raise the question why polygamous marriages should not be legalized too.

(Suzieonline’s objection that they would not be consensual is irrelevant, because a) that is still not a reason why *consensual* polygamous marriage should be illegal and b) in any event, non-consensual marriage is already illegal, whether monogamous, gay or polygamous.

> If two men live together for thirty years as companions but never have sex should not they be considered a couple in terms of rights to all the privileges afforded a married couple?

No. It’s got nothing to do with whether they are men or not. It’s got to do with whether they *voluntarily* undertook obligations towards each other.

> If a man and woman live under the same roof and share everything except a sexual relationship should they not be entitled to the same rights that homosexual couples want?

No. It’s got nothing to do with whether the relationship is sexual or not (though most marriages are). It’s got to do with whether people have *voluntarily* undertaken obligations towards each other.

> Is having sex the criteria for a relationship that is able to access the privileges provided by law and government? If that is true then should not the government be seeking proof of sexual activity before it gives out those privileges?

That is the logical consequence of current laws recognizing sexual relationships regardless whether or not the recognition is voluntary.

>There are many loving relationships that are not sexual and these have as much right as those that are.

> No they don’t. It’s not about love, it’s about voluntarily undertaking obligations.

> It is about rights for all people not just for sexually active people.

No it’s not. It’s about rights for people who have *voluntarily* undertaken the obligations that correspond with those rights; and not imposing obligations nor conferring rights on those who have not.

People who *do* voluntarily enter into a relationship should have the right and freedom to make and formalize their own arrangements...

David f,

The population of Russia is imploding.

Russia will become a predominately Muslim country in a few decades, as Muslims are about the only race left in Russia now having babies, and one could hardly call Muslims Marxist or feminist.

Our country is highly feminist and somewhat Marxist, and we now depend on immigrants to prop up our population.

Ironic that we are now being asked to “embrace” multiculturalism. In a feminist or Marxist state, multiculturalism is about the only thing someone is likely to embrace.

We are just animals on the farm.

(cont.)
as they please, free of interference from government imposing a ‘one-size-fits-all’ monogamous heterosexual marriage strait-jacket on everyone, just so as to accommodate people who have avoided exchanging commitments because “we’ll just see how it works out” and because marriage is “just a piece of paper”.

Why should people who have deliberately avoided marriage because they don’t want and don’t accept its terms, find themselves involuntarily saddled with them, for the sake of those who don’t get married because “it’s just a piece of paper” and who, after the event, now expect all the rights of marriage without ever actually having gotten married? That is the immoral result of the de facto relationship laws.

Monogamous marriage should be an “opt-in” arrangement, not an “opt-out” arrangement imposed on the entire population for the convenience of the commitment-averse who couldn’t be bothered deciding.

The abolition of government regulation of sexual relationships would have the advantage that people could make and unmake whatever arrangements they want.

Those who had not entered into a committed relationship would have neither the rights nor the obligations because they have not undertaken them, and that is as it should be. Marriage is for adults, not children who need other people to decide what relationships they should be in.

The abolition of government regulation of sexual relationships would also mean there would be no need for minority sexualities to have to prove, as against the prejudice and sexual bigotry of the majority, that they may have consensual personal relationships that are none of anyone else’s business.

The key is to permit and to enforce the relationships that people choose to enter into by way of contracts, trusts, wills, powers of attorney etc. and *not to rush in and save the nincompoops who can’t be bothered formalizing their relationships by providing a one-size-fits-all relationship for their convenience at the cost of everyone else’s freedom*.

However it is not true that gays can’t marry. They can exchange commitments and settle property. They can’t get statutory recognition of the relationship, which neither they nor anyone else is entitled to.

Dear vanna,

I don't know what your last post has to do with the misstatements I pointed out in your first post.

You followed that up with more misstatements in your most recent post. Australia is not Marxist. The means of production are in private hands. Religious institutions are a powerful force.

It is not feminist. The legislatures and the corporate world are still male dominated.

We do not depend on immigrants to prop up our population. Without immigration we would still have a population increase.

Multiculturalism is just a slowing down of assimilation so immigrants are not forced to give up their traditions in a hurry. Eventually they will blend into Australian society.

I await your next post with worms in my mouth (baited breath).

David f,
There is a universal law.

If a species of plant or animal does not produce enough offspring, then the species of plant or animal eventually becomes extinct.

As a country, Australia produces about 1.75 offspring per mother and father (not including the abomination of IVF). This is not enough to continue the species, so there is immigration.

As a feminist country, we don’t produce hardly anything, and there is now a deficit regards most things.

Married women produce almost twice the number of babies as unmarried women, and the feminist ideal of de facto relationships not only produces too few children, it also produces the highest rates of child poverty, child neglect, child abuse, general drug taking, depression, fatherless children, run away children, low marks in schools etc.

So that is why most societies decided to have marriage (pre-feminism).

I hope you understand now.

That's right. The government spends billions on child protection bureaucracies while actively discriminating against marriage and subsidising single parenthood and step-parenthood, which are two of the biggest correlates with risk of harm and disadvantage to children.[Peter Hume]

PeterHume:
So is paedophilia [a priority issue targetted vigilantly by government "Bureaucracies" to assist with the protection of our innocent 'under aged' children].

Dear vanna,

A country is not a species. Species appear and disappear, but when a country disappears the people who made up that country can live on. However, I think that it is a healthy sign that Australia produces about 1.75 offspring per mother and father. Populations cannot increase indefinitely. It is normal for populations to increase and decrease as circumstances change. The present human population in the world is unsustainable. It would be good if we had fewer people on the planet. It can be done by starvation, war or other nasty means. The best way is for women to choose to have fewer children. That is happening in Australia and in other countries.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=as&v=25 is a website listing the birth rates of 221 countries or political entities from Niger with the highest birth rate to Hong Kong with the lowest birth rate. Australia is 163 on the list. There are 38 with a lower birth rate than Australia. Luxembourg, Bermuda, Cuba, Russia, Norway, United Kingdom, Denmark, Romania, Netherlands, Finland, Estonia, Portugal, Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Poland, Latvia, Spain, Belarus, Croatia, Ukraine, Switzerland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, Lithuania, Taiwan, Slovenia, South Korea, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Singapore, Austria, Germany, Italy and Japan all have lower birth rates than Australia. It appears to be a world wide trend. Over population is a great problem. Extinction is not.

Australia does not need to produce more babies. We have 3% of the fresh water resources that the US has. Our top soil is lacking in trace elements. We have the highest rate of species extinction in the world. We are overpopulated, but some people don't understand that. Unfortunately, one of those people is now prime minister.

David F
Races of people are not that different to species of animals.

If a race of people does not produce 2.2 children per woman, it becomes extinct. Guess which race will eventually predominate in Australia, (and many other countries).

De Facto relationships are a very expensive exercise, and you are paying for it.

As well as social dislocation, de facto relationships also create a demand for housing.

With an average life expectancy of about 3 years, de facto relationships often end in single person households. With about 1 in 4 households now a single person household, it is creating considerable demand for housing, pushing up prices.

Not only do feminist and Marxist societies become extinct, they do so expensively.

Vanna,

In addition to making misstatements, you don't listen.

W.A.U.
No-one is defending paedophilia. But paedophilia doesn't mean under-age sex. It means a psychiatric condition in which the person is unable to experience sexual stimulation unless with an immature child - you know, a *real* child, a sexually immature person - not a person who is four or five years past puberty, is fully sexually mature with fully-functional reproductive organs, is able to bear children or has in fact already borne children, but who is defined by 150-year old law to be a child regardless of the facts?

The abolition of government regulation of sexual relationships would also mean there would be no need for minority sexualities to have to prove, as against the prejudice and sexual bigotry of the majority, that they may have consensual personal relationships that are none of anyone else’s business. [PeterHume]

Last post to you mate: "IF's" and "could be's" are an illusion PeterHume. Government legislation and protocol will NOT be changed in Australia regarding the age of consent [if anything; the legislation will be risen]. take off to another country where the laws differ in regard to childrens' age of consent. The majority of Australians [in particular parents] are satisfied that legislation is in place regarding the age of consent. You are a minority PeterHume. You wont change the majority of peoples' minds via your postings. So why bother flogging a dead horse over the issue in various threads. Government will not abolish legislation for a minority of Australians. And thank you God for that

Peter Hume, this thread is about marriage and commitment.
How did you manage to bring underage sex into the mix again?

You have mentioned these thoughts in other threads. What age do you think humans are ready for sex and marriage?

The current '150 year old laws' have been left unchallenged for a reason.

Although some children under the age of consent (under 16), are physically able to produce children, they are still way behind in the emotional capacity to deal with all that parenthood has to throw at them.

There are still some backward countries in the world who allow underage marriages (usually of the girls to older men).
Would you be more comfortable living there perhaps?

Suzieonline
"Peter Hume, this thread is about marriage and commitment.
How did you manage to bring underage sex into the mix again?"

Answering W.A.U.'s question which she posted in this thread?

“What age do you think humans are ready for sex and marriage?”

I think there are real issues with age as a criterion, because:
a) different people mature at different rates, so what is just for one person is unjust for another;
b) for a given individual maturation is on a continuum. It’s not the case that they completely lack maturity until a certain age and then switch over next day to being fully mature, as the age of consent laws treat them; and
c) *age* is always only ever a surrogate for an underlying state of development, physical or emotional. But when you ask, the defenders of age of consent laws are never able to say what that state of development is. Can you? A simple ‘no’ will suffice.

And as the average age at puberty has dropped by three years since the age of consent laws were passed, the effect is in that time to have raised the age of consent three years above the relevant stage of development. Yet the fact is many young people who reached puberty years ago, and are still under the age of consent, aren’t going to *wait* to start their sex lives for the sake of legislators in Macquarie Street 150 years ago who neither knew nor cared about the particular facts. The effect is more and more to criminalise normal *non-abusive* human behaviour for large numbers. Anyone questioning it is treated to argument which lumps in this category with the violent rape of little children and questioning of personal motives.

There is no issue that people who are immature would be abused by sex whether they consented or not and that it should be a criminal offence; and that people who are mature enough and for whom sex would not be necessarily abusive, are able to give meaningful consent, even though they are under the age of majority.

The question is, what is the relevant state of maturity? - which *no-one* is able to specify. That being so, I don’t see why the solution should be an aged-based one-size-fits-all imposed in the abstract; and therefore why the decision should be for the state rather than the parents and their offspring. Rape is already illegal at any age, and by law parents have the parental responsibility until 18.

"Although some children under the age of consent (under 16), are physically able to produce children, they are still way behind in the emotional capacity to deal with all that parenthood has to throw at them."

How do you know? Do you know them all do you? And presumably where the age of consent is 17 their emotional capacity lags behind for a further year? Nonsense.

"There are still some backward countries in the world who allow underage marriages (usually of the girls to older men). Would you be more comfortable living there perhaps?"

The ages of consent vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Does that mean everywhere is a "backward country" in relation to the country with the highest age of consent? Why not make it 21 just to be sure? If the interests of the sexually mature young person and their sexual partner in not being criminalised for consensual sex count for nothing, there is no reason.

Both your arguments are completely circular. Neither has given any reason to think that 16 is the age at which people become ready to have sex, nor even tried to come to terms with what the relevant stage of development is. W.A.U. tries to deal with the fact she is unable give any coherent reason by saying, in effect, “It is, because it is, because it is.” And Suzieonline by saying, if I don’t like it, why don’t I go somewhere else?

Your arguments makes no more sense than if I were to say “Well under-age sex just happens, so if you don’t like it, why don’t you move to another country!”

Mr Hume,

'Why should people who have deliberately avoided marriage because they don’t want and don’t accept its terms, find themselves involuntarily saddled with them, for the sake of those who don’t get married because “it’s just a piece of paper” and who, after the event, now expect all the rights of marriage without ever actually having gotten married? That is the immoral result of the de facto relationship laws. '

My sentiments exactly.

Suze,

'they are still way behind in the emotional capacity to deal with all that parenthood has to throw at them.'

But contraception is widely available. Just saying.

Mr Hume,

What do you think about the age of consent being based on first menstruation for girls and first wet dream for boys? Maybe then the age of any partner until the age of 18 can be legislated to be no more than 3 years older. So an 18yo girl or boy cannot have sex with anyone under 15. But, a 15yo boy or girl can have sex with a 12 yo boy or girl. Maybe you should at least limit it to 13. I think it's at least a bit more realistic than having 15yo's who are just doing what comes naturally being criminalised.

Of course, if consent laws reflected societal attitudes, the age of consent for girls would be 21 and for boys about 12.

Houllebecq
I think politically it would be a can of worms any way. The main thing is that young people should be sexually mature and the relation be not abusive on the one hand, but having admitted those limits, the deciding factors should not be the sexual morality of the officious meddlers, or sexual jealousy of the parents on the other.

In NSW they have variable age brackets like you mention. But often it doesn't work out like that, and the commonest thing in the world is for females to choose an older partner. I have known cases of young women aged 15 or even 13, with partners 19 or 21. A sexually mature young woman, say aged 15, isn't going to want to go out with a 15-year old boy - from her point of view it would be like going out with a child. As my wife explained, the reason why young women like that go out with young men so much older is because they *are* their peers.

"Of course, if consent laws reflected societal attitudes, the age of consent for girls would be 21 and for boys about 12."

LOL yeah. There was a case on TV a while ago about an adolescent boy who had been "sexually abused" supposedly in a consensual relationship with an older woman. You couldn't get the grin off his face with a pneumatic chisel.

You guys can carry on speculating about when you think girls and boys are, or are not, ready for sex.

The fact remains that it is 16 years of age and older as the legal age of consent in Australia.

Whether you like it or not.

The issue is not what it is, but what it should be. Your comment makes no more sense than to say under-age sex happens as a matter of fact, whether you like it or not.