"You know, when in Rome do as the Romans do."
Posted by Constance, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:10:28 PM

So why did she proselytise Roman Catholic Christianity to dying Indians - in India - who were hardly ever Christian, and concentrate on their suffering in preparation for a Catholic Christian notion of an afterlife, as opposed to the Indian notions of re-incarnation? how about "when in India, let Indians do as the Indians do"
.

contd..

BR, "A Galaxy poll result showed that 60% of Australians are in favour of same sex marriage."

A little academic independence and frankness would reveal the limitations of that survey wouldn't it?

Also, academic independence and less blind advocacy would support what I propose: direct consultation with the electorate on such a significant social change. Put it to the voters at an election in the form of a referendum if you believe what you say. There are reasons why minor parties like the Greens are very coy about their social policies.

BR, "I don't know how you get into a non consensual de facto relationship."

Easy peasy, it is something you don't agree to or state is not your intention. However that isn't adequate to protect against being deemed to be in one is it?

You would want a person to be adequately informed before entering into a serious contract, that there be informed consent obtained in advance, yes? But that is not the case.

Worse, what if the conditions were as vague and murky? What if even government agencies, those who are most likely to affect the involved parties, might differ on the final decision or reasons for tat decision?

BR, "I don't know how you don't know you're in a de facto relationship."

You need to talk with the people for whom you are making rules. For example, many people, especially young people, do not understand that they can be deemed to be de factos even where they do not live together. Social policy should not set booby traps.

BR, "I really think the onus for being informed on these crucial matters has to be with the parties involved."

It is never good enough to put through half-baked laws that create more problems and discontent than they are supposed to solve. What about you come up with a few simple, practical rules so that people can understand where they stand with de facto regulation? Government agencies seem thoroughly confused by it and the electorate is at odds with it too.

Cornflower, I don't really think social change can be reduced to people trying to "weasel other meanings."

The legislation on the definition of the Marriage Act was passed because the Howard government had a Senate majority. There was a huge groundswell against it, but it was passed because of the government's senate majority and because the ALP did not object.

60% of Australians is not, in my assessment a "focus group."

If there is a desire for change to current de facto legislation then people need to organise themselves into campaigning for that, just as gay activists and any other activists for social change have to do.

I have no interest in de facto legislation, I'm not seeking to make any rules about that or anything else. I'm seeking to remove rules that prevent people doing what they are perfectly entitled to do. So we are on the same side, really,because I gather that is what you want too.

"Common understandings" are challenged all the time, and so they should be. Because they are common understandings doesn't make them right, or true, or honest, or fair. The common understandings of today can be completely different from the common understandings of the past. Society changes. Once it was commonly understood that some criminals would be hanged.

"I'm seeking to remove rules that prevent people doing what they are perfectly entitled to do."

You are embracing a fallacy that marriage is something that government does or grants to people. This is factually incorrect.

Gays have as much right to, in their own terms, "marry" as anyone else. They can exchange undertakings to take as husband or wife etc., and they can hold ceremonies to celebrate the making of such commitments, that are in every way substantively the same as heterosexuals; indeed moreso because of the legislative restrictions on heterosexuals.

Gays can settle their property as between themselves without hindrance. And so far as their property relations are caught by the de facto relations legislation, substantively the same legal regime applying as to a marriage, and is even litigated in the same courts.

What gays can't do is register their unions under the Marriage Act. But neither could heterosexuals until the 19th century. Does that mean that, until then, the government was "preventing them from doing what they were perfectly entitled to do?" Poppycock!

The question is, *why* do gays want to register their relationships under the Marriage Act?

In practice, registration under the Marriage Act would actually restrict the rights of gays even more than now, since
a) it precludes 'polygamous' (poly-anal?) relationships
b) it imposes restrictions on freedom of property settlements, and of dissolution that do no apply now.

Clearly the gay marriage movement is motivated by *symbolic* reasons. Exactly like the Christians before them, they want to use the state to bully everyone else into granting vicarious recognition, through the state, for their moral opinions of their sexual proclivities, even, and especially, as they know that many or most people do not agree.

Appeal to a majority is utterly empty. If a majority were in favour of persecuting gays, or against gay marriage, are you saying that would settle the question, would it?

Thus the argument is
a) factually incorrect
b) illogical
c) facile, and
d) every bit as pious, bullying, chauvinist and hypocritical as the Christians they accuse.

Chill, Jardine K Jardine.
Nobody is trying to bully you into recognising anybody. You can ignore whomever you choose and for whatever reason.

There are some heterosexual proclivities that really upset some people. Anal sex is one of them. "Promiscuity" is another. Teenage pregnancies. STDs. Prostitution. Adultery. Pornography. The list of possible heterosexual offenses is long.

The right to enter into legal marriage is granted to hetero couples by Federal government legislation. This is factually correct. Marriage is a legislated state.

The other agreements you describe are private and do not involve the state, and the state does not recognise them as marriage, but as de facto arrangements.

And de facto relationships are subjected to similar property settlement requirements in the event of dissolution as is marriage.

I imagine the answers to your question about why gays want legal marriage are not very much different from why heteros want it. Public commitment,mutual responsibility, an undertaking to be monogamous, a legal framework in which to build a family, and because they love one another. And because marriage in our society is still important to some people.

I'm not sure what the reference to the marriage requirements of the 19th century has to do with anything, given we are now well into the 21st.

There are many things in any society that are disliked by some members of that society. Doesn't mean those things should necessarily be forbidden.

I guess you don't want same sex couples to be recognised, and you'll feel bullied into recognising them if the state allows them to be married. But you don't have to agree with the state, do you? There must be a few things you already disagree with the state about.

I guess you just don't want to live in a world where gays are allowed to get married and you're mad that you might not be able to control that.

But your life doesn't have to change one tiny bit if some same sex couples are allowed to marry. You probably won't even know about it.
Jennifer.

I thank you all for your inputs and the world is changing faster than most can keep up, and the bottom line is we are all human and we are all natures creatures and to hell with the past mindsets. What this means we are simply one species, but unfortunately humans seem to pride themselves higher than the value of the collective organisms that make us and with our ignorance will probably break us.

I do rant on don't I, but much of what i say is very very true to the terms and conditions to making a civilized and heart meaningful post, and don't forget (and Tony Abbott said don't listen to university opinions, and how does this give faith to our younger people which will inherit what these 19th century leaders have put in place for you, which as irony would have it, they want to teach you the future, but have no clues themselves. Bottom line if you are in love get to work.

I always believe that the simple things in life are often the best.

All the best

TTM