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).