Phanto

I neither said nor meant that married love is superior to other love; simply that marriage is something deeply valued by many of us who are married, and I see no reason to prevent homosexual couples enjoying it too if they want. Others can choose whether to marry or not.

I agree with you about the changing nature of marriage and its separation from child-rearing; I have made similar points myself. Your argument is against all forms of marriage, not just same-sex marriage. That’s a perfectly rational stance, though one I disagree with. But it is not an argument for only forbidding same-sex marriage. You say marriage equality is of no benefit to gays, because you assume marriage has no value to either gays or straights. But even if you see marriage as of no value, why deny it to others (gay or straight) who do value it?

And while social values are changing, more than half of Australians aged 18+ are married. It is less unpopular than you seem to imply.

phanto,

There may be some with sinister intentions (I'd doubt there are any - sounds more like homophobic paranoia to me), but not all gay people think alike and there are bound to be some who are sincere.

<<They are not just pushing for equality – they are pushing for marriage equality.>>

The distinction is inconsequential to my argument. That should have been clear by now.

<<Only a fool would push for equality when it has no benefits attached to being equal.>>

There are always benefits attached to equality, and they always outweigh the risks. In all my studies involving sociology, I have never come across a scenario that contradicted this simple truth.

<<No one argues that equality as a value is a good thing...>>

I have not spoken of equality as a value, I've only mentioned the practical benefits of it (e.g. societal health, social contentment). Equality could be an immoral pursuit for all I care. It wouldn’t change anything.

<<...but equality only has value if it gives something to a group which they do not already possess.>>

Yes, and in this instance, directly or indirectly, this will benefit everyone to one degree or another. Not just those in the group.

<<The question is what does government sanctioned marriage give to same-sex couples which they do not already possess?>>

Marriage equality.

<<There is no point in having something which gives you nothing in return except for a piece of paper which also give you nothing in return – it is just a piece of paper.>>

That's your opinion. Others, like Rhian and myself, see value in it. For me, it's symbolic.

<<What are the demonstrable benefits of a marriage certificate?>>

There doesn't need to be any. It's the recognition that same-sex couples are worthy of them too.

But this is all very disingenuous. If there are no benefits to a marriage certificate, then why do you care if same-sex couples are able to obtain one? Somehow I don't think you're trying to do them a favour.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Why would same-sex couples need this or even want it? Why does it matter what society thinks of your personal relationship?>>

Because no-one should be treated like a second-class citizen.

<<It is no one else’s business.>>

So long as we all have to live together, it's everyone's business.

<<Why would I presume you speak for the whole movement?>>

Read what you said again.

<<It sounds like you are being evasive.>>

No, I've made it clear that a lack of any direct benefits would make no difference to my argument.

<<Don’t you think you should care [if the government is involved in marriages or not] if you are going into bat for same-sex couples?>>

No, why would I?

<<If governments should not be involved then it is a pointless pursuit.>>

Correct. "But so long as they are, they should not discriminate against same-sex couples." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17967#319321)

<<If [the government] should be involved then why do you think that is?

Equality and all the benefits that it entails.

<<[Concern about the government being in the 'marriage business'] is hardly disingenuous if one of the parties that need to co-operate in order to bring about same-sex marriage is the government.>>

It's disingenuous because it apparently wasn't a problem before same-sex couples started demanding equality.

<<Would you go to the dentist without checking if he has a right to be involved with your teeth?>>

Not only is this analogy invalid, but it ignores the fact that millions of couples freely enter into such arrangements and thus apparently believe theat the government has the right.

phantom: <<What are the demonstrable benefits of a marriage certificate?>>

Well yes it's just a piece of paper. Like I said to my wife when we got marrier 28 years ago. "You see this "Marriage Certificate." I'd like you to note that it says right here "Certificate" Not "Receipt." You don't own me & I don't own you. Remember that." She seems to have forgotten but I haven't. ;-)

The only real benefit to a Marriage Certificate is for the Lawyers. I think that if you wish to divorce you should be able to go the your Lawyer say you want a Divorce & he does the Paper Work. That's it. Done & dusted.

But, No. You both have to have a separate Lawyer who delight in writing letters to each other on your behalf & that's where the fight & the Costs begins. Well, They're only protecting your interests. Eh. ;-)

& the Lawyers sit back with a big Cheshire Cat grin & rake in the money. YeeeHarrr!

Rhian:

I did not say that marriage has no value - I said that government involvement in marriage adds no value to it.

Everyone has a right to be married but they should not have that right in regard to the government. No one needs a a government sanctioned marriage and that is what we are talking about here. The only reason we are talking about legislation is because we are talking about government regulated marriage.

If you keep using marriage and government sanctioned marriage as interchangeable then that is dishonest. They are not and never have been the same thing.

It is an insult to all those who hold their relationship to be a marriage even though it is not sanctioned by the government to be less than a government sanctioned one.

I have made this point several times now and you seem to just glaze over it.

It has nothing to do with popularity. There are many types of relationships that can be called a marriage. Government sanctioned marriage is only one type but in my opinion there is no need for government sanctioned marriage and no good reason to maintain it. Governments are duty bound to do things for good reasons and no one has yet shown me a good reason why the government should be involved in marriage at all.

The central theme of the article is a simple idea of justice viz., once the government creates an institution giving rights and privileges to some, it must do so in a principled way, by treating all citizens with equal concern for their interests and equal respect for themselves as members of the same community. I see this as a foundation stone of any political theory worth defending, regardless of how much the institution serves the interests or enhances the freedom of others.

Whether or not the exclusion of same-sex couples is unfair depends (I argue) on the role or point or purpose of official or state marriage as distinct from traditional religious marriage. This is a contested issue, because many religions believe the state should adopt their views on the purpose or justification of state marriage, and this is the case in jurisdictions where a given religion, such as Islam or Catholicism, is dominant.

I thought Dr. Jensen’s article was interesting because he argued that the case against same-sex marriage rested on non-religious grounds - on what he called the ‘conservative’ position, which I tried to show was not a valid argument.

Whether the institution is worth supporting is clearly a very different question from whether or not it is unfair to exclude gay persons from its benefits. I saw no need to defend the institution other than by reminding readers of one reason which was not religious, but rested on ordinary, everyday values.

A full defence would need to look at the principles we believe should govern the state’s formal recognition of private contracts dealing with highly personal, non-business relationships, but also at the complex legal relationship between family law and social welfare laws.

I am grateful for the range of ideas and arguments the discussion has brought out.

Max Atkinson