In regard to marriage, I wonder if Martin considers me to be one of those "heterosexuals who are mostly responsible for its breakdown". Married in church, later divorced [a blessing for both of us]. A number of lady friends. Then a 22 year de facto relationship with a wonderful [divorced] lady, who I sadly lost four years ago. And now a two year loving relationship with another divorced lady, which is probably unlikely to be formalised by marriage. Think what you want, Martin or others, but don't you dare judge me or the ladies in my life. Nor my many good friends who are also in de facto relationships.

As I took Redneck to suggest, we don't have a justice system, we have a legal system. But I don't consider this anything to be proud of, nor to be accepting and complacent about.

I am very active socially and dance Ballroom and Latin 4 or 5 times a week. Ballroom dancing, particularly in my age group, is a fairly conservative sort of pastime. I am also active in business and move in fairly conservative business circles. Yet when the subject of gay people comes up, I generally find that most of my friends and associates are neither judgemental nor amused, in an unpleasant kind of way, about homosexuality.

Homosexuals used to be executed in many societies. Maybe they still are in some. I remember in England in the 1940s and 1950s, homosexual men in positions of influence defected to other [hostile] countries rather than be publicly outed. Others went to jail for allegedly leading astray other adult consenting men. Our legal system may still be defective, but we've come a long way since then.

So you could say that gay people are winning when it comes to gaining general acceptance. They certainly have far more understanding within the community. But why stop when you are winning? It makes good sense to push forward towards your goals.

If various other civil rights movements had been prepared to settle for an unjust compromise, then perhaps none of us would have achieved equality.

Neckie
You've been switching the goal posts once again. First I asserted that to deny marriage to homosexuals was to violate a legal precept - equality before the law. You claimed that this was a moral standpoint. When I proved it wasn't you shifted the goal posts & argued that it wasn't the most important legal precept. When I proved that the most important legal precept - justice - also supported the marriage of homosexuals you changed the goal posts once again & argued that law [no longer legal precepts] were based on morality & morality was against homosexual marriage.

3 points neckie.

1) Common law is to some degree based on Roman law. To quote the wikipedia "Even the English and North American Common law owes some debt to Roman law although Roman law exercised much less influence on the English legal system than on the legal systems of the continent." Since Our system is NOT based solely on morality but on roman law & precedent, then morality has NO say on whether homosexual marriage becomes legalised.

2) Let's say, for argument's sake, that all common law is based on public morality. So what? Public morality is NOT monolithic & unchanging. What was unthinkable 100 years ago is commonplace now. In other words public morality is constantly changing. Therefore if the law is based on public morality it too must constantly change. Now there is a growing amount of evidence for the public acceptance of homosexuals by the majority of Australians. It follows from this that if law is based on public morality & public morality is slowly accepting the idea of homosexuals getting married then the law should be changed to suit.

3) By accepting that the Formal Principle of Justice applies to homosexual marriage you are admitting that giving homosexuals the right to be married is merely an act of justice. Thank you

Conclusion: Law is not based on public morality but even if it were then it can be argued that since public morality and justice support homosexual marriage then the law must be changed.

To Mr Bosk.

I have refuted your assertion that equality before the law is uppermost in Australian law and I have given examples to illustrate that point. If you wish to continue submitting an argument that is plainly invalid then please go right ahead.

I did not claim that inequality before the law was a moral standpoint. I simply pointed out that the laws of every society are based upon the prevailing cultural moral values of that society. I would have thought that this was obvious.

“Justice” is a relative term (like near or far) and it means different things to different people. I personally do not believe that our laws are just unless it puts to death those convicted of the most heinous and cruel crimes. You would probably disagree with my concept of “Justice”, as I oppose your concept of “Justice.”

Now to your three points.

1. Our laws may reflect the Roman judicial system in its formal structure, in that we use “magistrates” in the same way that the Romans used “Preators”, “lawyers” which the Romans called “advocates” (this term is still used to some extent today), formal judicial hearings, and rights of appeal. But Roman law was based upon the prevailing moral code of the Romans at the time.

2. You are correct when you state that moral values, and therefore the laws which support them, change with the times. You should be arguing why we should continue to change our moral code in respect to homosexuals instead of simply demanding that we must change our laws to conform to your particular concept of “justice.”

3. I did not say anything of the sort. I pointed out that most people do not consider a partnership of two men to be marriage, although our society may recognise that homosexual have a valid case in terms of inheritance rights and other issues. But if some homosexuals continue to claim that a homosexual union is “marriage”, they will be alienating those who are up to now have supported homosexual rights.

Neckie
Quote "I have refuted your assertion that equality before the law is uppermost in Australian law..." I said it was important, NOT the most important.

Quote "I did not claim that inequality before the law was a moral standpoint." This is a LIE neckie. Quote "You are using the concept of universal equality as a MORAL absolute."

Quote You would probably disagree with my concept of “Justice”, as I oppose your concept of “Justice.” The Formal Principle of Justice is accepted by every legal system in western Europe as well as the UK, USA, Canada & AUSTRALIA to name just a few. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.

One thing you might like to consider. If law is merely legislated morality then what is morality's stance on tort law? Property rights as well as a few thousand other laws? Morality has precious little to say about any of them.

Now your weird attempts at response.

1) Quote "Roman law was based upon the prevailing moral code of the Romans at the time." Really? Then we don't have a problem since the Romans didn't have ANY problems with homosexuality.

2) "You are correct when you state that moral values, and therefore the laws which support them, change with the times. You should be arguing why we should continue to change our moral code in respect to homosexuals..." Irrelevant. The moral code is changing whether you wish it to or not neckie. your biases are going the way of the dodo. And since, according to you, the law is based on morality then the law MUST change to be in accord with those changes.

3) "I pointed out that most people do not consider a partnership of two men to be marriage,..." your evidence for this is?
If most people are against marriage then why do most polls show the majority have no trouble with it?

Why has one territory in Australia had a government elected which had the legalisation of homosexual marriages as part of its platform? Reality is against you neckie. You've lost neckie. Bye

Neckie
Just a few more rebuttals:
What I actually said Quote "LEGAL PRECEPTS have NOTHING to do with morality."

What you misinterpreted me as saying Quote "And where you got the notion that LAW has nothing to do with morality, is anybodies guess."

Notice I was discussing LEGAL PRECEPTS [they are the guiding principles of the law]. You on the other hand claimed I said the LAW has nothing to do with morality. Legal precepts are NOT the same as the law neckie.

In fact I have NEVER said that morality played no part in the formulation of the law Quote " Our laws are based on ancient Roman law, custom & tradition, prejudice, ignorance, an appeal to popular opinion & yes MORALITY as well."

Since you have told untruths, changed your argument without acknowledging it & have misinterpreted Me so consistently I think I will leave the thread here. bye neckie.

To Mr Bosk

From the very beginning of our exchange, you have based your argument upon the principle of equality in the law. I graciously pointed out to you that if you base your argument upon moral absolutes, then you will fail. When you could get nowhere refuting my logic on the subject of legal equality, you tried another moral absolute, that of “justice.” Once again, I can easily counter that concept.

One thing that I have learned from being on debate sites is that those people who base their arguments upon moral absolutes are easy meat. They are usually young people who are so used to being told what is right or what is wrong by their parents or their peers, that they have never thought out the subjects which they are so passionate about. They simply parrot the fashionable slogans that their peers inculcate into their heads without bothering to even try to understand their opponent’s point of view, or figure out their opponents underlying motivations. They also see little need to do any research other than listening to their friend’s hearsay.

They then find a debate site like this one. And, convinced that they are really smart and that their opponents are all dimwits, they launch into tirades of self righteous abuse as a substitute for reasoned logic. It is funny to see them get really angry and frustrated when they begin to realise that they are outclassed by people who have thought about a subject and who have done some research. Their usual response is to gather what is left of their dignity and march out of the arena, pausing only to turn and throw insults and claims of unfair treatment at their opponent, who is still waiting with his sword in his hand.

I won’t bother responding to your questions if you are running away.