The language used in this debate is meant to trick voters to favour the creation of “same-sex marriage” because of the way it frames the issue, but the underlying reality is different. Even the use of the word “reform” in the title of this article is part of the same trick.

Human rights, discrimination, equality and all the other emotive terms used in this issue are irrelevant. “Marriage” has a clear meaning. The “same-sex marriage” campaign confuses access to something with the nature of the something. A funeral is the celebration of the life of someone who is dead. A living person can have a celebration of his or her life, but it is not a funeral. Funerals do not discriminate against the living because by their nature they are about the dead. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, so, by definition, a man cannot “marry” – i.e., form a union with a woman – another man. A man can live with another man, have a celebration, have legal recognition, inherit property from a same-sex union, etc. But that does not mean the language should be deprived of a word that means the union of a man and a woman, any more than it should be deprived of a word that means the bearer of children or a word that means the celebration of the life of a dead person.

Hmmm.... just some thoughts.

I suppose they could get married. It's the act of "Buggery" that is a separate offence. Is it still an Offence? Over to you AJ. Just yes or no will do. OK. No getting bogged down in a myriad of Legal technicality & interpretation please.

I suppose there is the thing where I would go along if I got caught buggering someone. Where-as, if a Judge got caught that would be a different Interpretation. Eh.

Dustin,

The nay-sayers do need to “lift a finger” if they don’t want same-sex marriage legislated, and for the reasons I’ve already mentioned.

<<The nay-sayers … aren’t obliged to lift a finger. I expect they will rely on the contract.>>

An Act is not a contract, and to rely on a piece of legislation to support one’s position is to commit the argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy.

<<The Federal Govt. enacts legislation and theoretically at least, everyone get’s to vote.That’s the way it works the last time I looked.>>

Sure, but that has nothing to do with who the onus is on to demonstrate the justness or not of denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

<<Remember we’re talking about ~4% of the population representing ~1% of all couples in Australia.>>

What does the percentage of people have to do with anything?

<<Incidentally, what might same-sex partners bring to the table in terms of the marriage institution more broadly?>>

Why does there need to be one? How isn’t equality enough of a reason?

<<Would same-sex marriage be viewed by society as equally legitimate?>>

Probably not by some individuals initially, but that’s already changing rapidly and it hasn’t even been legislated for yet.

<<Perhaps we should endorse polygamous marriages under some future legislation?>>

This is a Slippery Slope fallacy that I’ve already addressed multiple times before. But I’d be happy to go into it again for you.

<<Would we deny polygamists their rights…?>>

Probably, because polygamy is usually a religiously-dictated arrangement that often involves rape and incest.

As for this tiresome old Won’t-somebody-please-think-about-the-children angle you’ve taken, I’ve already addressed this at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17371#306701 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17786#314763.

Besides, same-sex couples are already having children. Legally recognising these children’s parent’s relationships too can only be a good thing.

phanto,

Whether same-sex couples can already get married according to a particular definition or not is beside the point. Trivial/symbolic or not, when a privilege or recognition is legally/formally granted to one group of people and not another without good reason, then it's discriminatory, and discrimination is not conducive to societal health, nor is it just.

AJ Philips:

“Whether same-sex couples can already get married according to a particular definition or not is beside the point. Trivial/symbolic or not, when a privilege or recognition is legally/formally granted to one group of people and not another without good reason, then it's discriminatory, and discrimination is not conducive to societal health, nor is it just.”

So do you think that they want to have equality for its own sake or do they actually want to get married? Equality for its own sake is meaningless unless it actually conveys something that you do not already have. What is it then that government sanctioned marriage conveys that that non-government sanctioned marriage does not?

Unless you can point to something specific then we can only assume they are after something other than marriage.

Just because something is granted to one group by the government does not mean that it is reasonable for them to do so. Governments do not always act reasonably. So if it is unreasonable for governments to be involved in opposite sex marriage then would it not also be unreasonable to be involved in same-sex marriage? What reasons do you see for government involvement in marriage?

Jayb,

No, anal sex has been legal for a while now.

phanto,

Why should you or I care what motives drive their push for equality?

<<So do you think that they want to have equality for its own sake or do they actually want to get married?>>

That would depend on the individual. Not all feminists who fought for the right for women to join the military wanted to join themselves, but that didn't make their case any less valid.

<<Equality for its own sake is meaningless unless it actually conveys something that you do not already have.>>

What do you mean by "convey"? Do you just mean "provides"? If so, then equality is a reason in itself given its demonstrable benefits and lack of downfalls.

<<What is it then that government sanctioned marriage conveys that that non-government sanctioned marriage does not?>>

Again what do you mean by "convey"? Do you mean "communicate" this time? If so, then it conveys the ideal that society as a whole accepts committed same-sex relationships as valid too.

<<Unless you can point to something specific then we can only assume they are after something other than marriage.>>

That's a lot of authority you give me there, but it cannot be presumed that I speak for the whole movement.

<<What reasons do you see for government involvement in marriage?>>

What does it matter? I don't care if the government is involved in marriages or not. But so long as they are, they should not discriminate against same-sex couples.

This whole 'What is the government doing in the marriage business anyway?' argument is disingenuous. It only really became an issue when same-sex couples stated demanding equality. I don't recall too many demanding that the government get out of the 'marriage business' before that. Wouldn't it look petulant to abolish any legal recognition of marriage simply because same-sex couples wanted the right to marry too? Imagine the legacy such an offensively childish move would leave.

There you go. There's another reason why marriage equality would be conducive to a healthier society.

A G Phillips
Your patience and perseverance seem to be matched only by the good sense and clarity of your explanations. Thanks for a great contribution to the ongoing debate. Max Atkinson